Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[wenglund]

When people stop using their moral compasses, or when their compasses aren't calibrated to true north, then they may end up heading in any direction, including due south, Case in point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

And in my experience, that makes it a lawyer's error.

I suppose, for people who think that lawyers are those who play them on TV. Seven episodes of Boston Legal reveal stupid, disingenuous, and silly arguments and positions taken by actor-lawyers which one never sees in real life.

Disingenuous arguments, which you have properly identified as Carmack's, are condemned in judicial opinions for what they are, so it is as wrong for all lawyers as it is for all auto mechanics.

I submit that condemning an opinion as a "lawyer's error" or "lawyer's trick" is an ad hominem and does not address the argument itself.

End of nannying.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Pahoran]

A bit thin-skinned, aren't we? Pointing out a "classic lawyer's error" does not disparage an entire profession as a whole, any more than saying (quite correctly) that some journalists are guilty of slanted writing.

Let's try to stay on point in this discussion.

Funny you should mention that.

When Bob got defensive on behalf of the legal fraternity, for some reason I was reminded of what happened during the Rabuka coup in Fiji in 1987. That was the top news item in Australia, where I lived at the time; the trouble was, the news had nothing to report. Foreign journalists were confined to their (rather nice) tourist hotels and weren't allowed out, so they couldn't report on anything. From time to time, a few of them managed to sneak out, only to get themselves roughed up by police. So, night after night on the six o'clock news, they would cross to Fiji to find out what was going on, and it always came down to, "Journalists are getting a hard time."

The impression was that the news was all about the journalists. After a while, the impression I started to get was that journos are a bit too impressed with their own importance.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose, for people who think that lawyers are those who play them on TV. Seven episodes of Boston Legal reveal stupid, disingenuous, and silly arguments and positions taken by actor-lawyers which one never sees in real life.

Disingenuous arguments, which you have properly identified as Carmack's, are condemned in judicial opinions for what they are, so it is as wrong for all lawyers as it is for all auto mechanics.

I submit that condemning an opinion as a "lawyer's error" or "lawyer's trick" is an ad hominem and does not address the argument itself.

End of nannying.

Slanted writing is widely condemned in the journalistic profession, but that doesn't mean it never happens.

[Scott Lloyd]

Funny you should mention that.

When Bob got defensive on behalf of the legal fraternity, for some reason I was reminded of what happened during the Rabuka coup in Fiji in 1987. That was the top news item in Australia, where I lived at the time; the trouble was, the news had nothing to report. Foreign journalists were confined to their (rather nice) tourist hotels and weren't allowed out, so they couldn't report on anything. From time to time, a few of them managed to sneak out, only to get themselves roughed up by police. So, night after night on the six o'clock news, they would cross to Fiji to find out what was going on, and it always came down to, "Journalists are getting a hard time."

The impression was that the news was all about the journalists. After a while, the impression I started to get was that journos are a bit too impressed with their own importance.

Regards,

Pahoran

Alas, in all too many cases, you would be correct in that impression.

[LDSToronto]

I have as simplistic a response as the opinion posted:

same-sex couples can and do make wonderful parents. By what definition of parenting?

I have posted this here before. Maybe someone will read the studies this time... http://www.nllfs.org/publications/

H.

[Analytics]

Analytics, not to be political or anything, but I think your prediction will be incorrect - people will still care about plumbing, especially in the church. I'm sure you have noticed that as the world drifts rapidly to what people call 'left', we slowly drift more 'right'. I guess you could say that many LDS are 'reactionary'... that is... the more people move away from us, the farther we must distance ourselves. If the world truly drifts towards not caring what the plumbing is, as you put it, I am pretty sure there will be even more emphasis in the church on what the plumbing is, rather than less.

It's a question of futurology at this point for sure. But I think it's clear which way the mainstream is going, and I believe there is a limit to how much tension will persist among the values of the church and the values of mainstream society. Polygamy is a great example--the church defended polygamy more and more for a while, and now it is as anti-polygamy as anybody else.

[Kenngo1969]

It is a rare thing when a major op ed piece is offered in contravention of the paper's political philosphies. I take the LA Times. It is rare, but it happens, when some right winger's op-ed piece is published.

I also take the Wall Street Journal. I don't think I've ever seen a leftist op-ed piece, unless it is counterbalanced by a right-wing op-ed piece published at the same time.

Op-ed pieces are often employed by papers as stalking horses, to say what the paper's editors lack the courage to say.

I don't think publication of op-eds which don't align with a publication's editorial position is as rare a thing as you suggest, nor am I convinced of your proffered rationale for the publication of op-eds. While I'm fairly certain that many (if not most) of the members of the Salt Lake Tribune's editorial board would take issue with several things I've said on their op-ed pages, the Trib has published those opinions anyway.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Pahoran]

I suppose, for people who think that lawyers are those who play them on TV. Seven episodes of Boston Legal reveal stupid, disingenuous, and silly arguments and positions taken by actor-lawyers which one never sees in real life.

Disingenuous arguments, which you have properly identified as Carmack's, are condemned in judicial opinions for what they are, so it is as wrong for all lawyers as it is for all auto mechanics.

Yes, but auto mechanics and lawyers are subject to influences that make them see the world differently; and while they are no less prone to make mistakes, the mistakes to which their trade might predispose them are different.

For example, an auto-mechanic would never suppose that because the law in one country mandates driving on the left, while the law in another mandates driving on the right, therefore those laws must prescribe some kind of underlying morality. The mechanic would simply assume that someone called "They" had just decided it that way.

OTOH, a lawyer probably wouldn't assume that a computer's hard drive is out of oil. That would be an auto mechanic's mistake.

I submit that condemning an opinion as a "lawyer's error" or "lawyer's trick" is an ad hominem and does not address the argument itself.

But I did address the argument itself.

End of nannying.

Thank goodness.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mikwut]

Gutarist wrote,

I would find it pretty difficult to explain away Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, & Romans 1:26-27...

Let's start with Romans. “The men likewise gave up natural relations with women…” It is easy to overlook what this is saying because of the interpretation that has been ingrained into our minds through poor teaching, but read that carefully. They gave up natural relations with women, and then had sexual relations with on another. There is a movement from A) having natural relations with women to B) giving up those relations and having sexual relations with men. The word translated as “gave up” is the Greek word aphentes meaning: to give up, leave behind, forsake, or divorce. The question must be asked: How can you give up something you do not have? How can you divorce yourself something you are not bound to? The men Paul was writing about, he explains had what was regarded for them as natural relationships with women. Basically, today we would say these were heterosexual men men who are naturally sexually attracted to women. These men, we see, turned their backs on their wives and were consumed with passion for one another. The women in the account did likewise. Paul is not talking about people who have had an attraction to the same sex since a young age, which is the case for many homosexuals today, but men who turned from relationships with women, who were filled with lust and idolatrous passions, and engaged in homosexual sex. Why would these men do that? As any biblical scholar will tell you: “Context is everything.” This is a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions. In this account heterosexual sex. So far we have looked at all three of the New Testament scriptures that are often used in reference to homosexuality as well as the Genesis narrative about the destruction of the city of Sodom. Cannon, Justin R. (2008-07-14). The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality (pp. 23-24). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition.

Concerning Leviticus: "This does not mean that the author is endorsing other forms of sex between men. We can tell from this study, though, that he is not writing about loving, committed, gay relationships. Rather, as would be expected, the author is writing about abusive sexual practices common in his day and age. Just as when you and I write critiques of our culture, we are writing about practices we see and familiar with. This Hebrew author would have been familiar with the male temple prostitutes, and the activity described is exactly how men would have treated the male temple prostitutesin a controlling and abusive manner. That is also how individuals would have been treated in the sacred sexual orgies with which Baal was worshiped. They would have had sex with other men “as with a women” using them in self-centered ways." (same above)

I don't think it the least bit irrational to point out that not only the Old and New Testaments but the very latter day revelations that opened up a new dispensation do not mention in any corresponding way loving and committed gay relationships or the proper view of sexual relations. That that fact is at such disparate difference to the seeming importance of this issue to Mormons is to me of no small significance.

regards, mikwut

[Bob Crockett]

Gutarist wrote,

Let's start with Romans. “The men likewise gave up natural relations with women…” It is easy to overlook what this is saying because of the interpretation that has been ingrained into our minds through poor teaching,

I submit that you have a massively uphill argument. Contrary to a thousand years of Biblical commentary. Favored by a small set of very recent shclarship which does not draw on new material. Yours is poor teaching. Kind of like reading scholarship that Jesus was really black; there's plenty of that.

Read the NIV Study Guide, Expositor's commentary on the NIV or KJV, Matthew Henry, Bruce Metzger, and report back. If I knew your profession I could denounce your argument for that as well.

[TAO]

It's a question of futurology at this point for sure. But I think it's clear which way the mainstream is going, and I believe there is a limit to how much tension will persist among the values of the church and the values of mainstream society. Polygamy is a great example--the church defended polygamy more and more for a while, and now it is as anti-polygamy as anybody else.

I guess. I don't know if the church has the exact same feel as it did when that happened or not... in other words... I don't know if that exact same effect will apply here, I guess. In any case, we will have to wait and see.

[Buzzard]

I humbly submit that biblical commentary, interpretation of what a word in Greek means, mention or lack of mention of homosexuality by either Christ or Paul or Moses or whomever is frankly irrevelant. If homosexual relationships are the moral equal of heterosexual marriage, then the great plan of happiness as revealed through Joseph Smith and other modern prophets is come to naught. There is no wiggle room, no space for accomodation. I'm not trying to be judgemental, and we should be kind and loving to all of Gods children, but some things are just bottom line. And trying to carve out a spot-outside of the telestial kingdom-in God's eternal plan for sexually active homosexuals, "married" or not, is just plain heretical.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Buzzard

[why me]

The lds will have a problem with same sex marriage ever becoming doctrine because of the eternal perspective that is found in the temple and the sealing. One foundation of the lds church is the temple sealing between man and woman, sealing the spouses together for eternity, with possible children to follow. Such as been the eternal perspective and the lds church would be very difficult to get out of it, regardless of the trend of the 'world' to promote same sex marriage. . .

[CV75]

I have posted this here before. Maybe someone will read the studies this time... http://www.nllfs.org/publications/

H.

I think this is far, far more representative of universal / global values:

http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30177.html

Especially the right to association with both biological parents.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'd say that arguing that the Bible does not condemn sex outside of marriage and specifically homosexual behavior is one of the most disingenuous arguments of the modern era but what do I know.

Agreed...this is the Lord's Church not ours.

[Messenger]

I would say to any Gay person, if a straight single man can be happy in the church and live a life of chastity, why cant you?

[Scott Lloyd]

In about 80 years, the LDS Prophet will be somebody who is now a teenager. Most of the apostles will be younger than him. For the vast majority of the people in Western Civilization, this will be an issue that was settled decades earlier: the ideals of marriage will be about intangibles like love and committment--it will be considered illogocial and vulgar to think that the plumbing of the spouses has anything to do with it.

Certainly the Church can and will do whatever it wants, but the meaning of traditional family values will continue to evolve. If the church can change its stance on polygamy and blacks, it can certainly change its position on this.

Elder David A. Bednar is the first apostle from my generation, the free-love, free-wheeling, "summer-of-love" generation of the sixties. Are his attitudes about sex more liberal, casual or non-traditional than those of his brethren? Obviously not. In the 50 years since, the sexual revelation has changed the doctrine and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ not at all. Sex between anyone other than a lawfully married man and woman is still regarded as an abomination, an offense punishable by the severest penalty the Church can mete out.

Neither Roger nor I will be around in 80 years. But I expect to be surviving after 10, perhaps even 20 or 30. I would like to revisit his prognostication then to test his notion that eternal laws of morality are subject to the changing whims of a secularist society. Perhaps I'll even put it on my calendar.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would say to any Gay person, if a straight single man can be happy in the church and live a life of chastity, why cant you?

A gay person might respond that the straight, single man at least has a hope for the future lawful expression of his sexuality in mortality.

That's why an eternal perspective is vital along with the recognition that same-gender attraction is a mortal malady that will be removed in the resurrection along with all other deformities and disorders.

[Messenger]

A gay person might respond that the straight, single man at least has a hope for the future lawful expression of his sexuality in mortality.

That's why an eternal perspective is vital along with the recognition that same-gender attraction is a mortal malady that will be removed in the resurrection along with all other deformities and disorders.

A gay person might say that, but there are plenty of straights that realize that the hope of marriage in this life is very low. And you are correct, having an eternal perspective, rather than a mortal one, makes all the difference.

[guitarist]

Gutarist wrote,

Let's start with Romans....Concerning Leviticus...

When I originally posted those scriptures, I was doing so from the KJV. I see you're using the NIV, so I'll switch over.

Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

So according to this, God gives them over to "shameful lusts". Women stop having "natural" sexual relations with men, and start having "unnatural" ones, strongly implying sexual relations with women. Men also abandon natural relations with women, and start lusting over each other. You say that these are only "shameful" because they are not loving, committed relationships, but appear to be one night stands, or the like. While that is likely true (that they are one night stands or the like) I disagree, I think that what Paul is calling "shameful" is the homosexual aspect. But as you say, context is everything, so let's go back a few verses more:

Romans 1:21-25 "21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."

So all this started because they knew God, but ceased glorying in him. They claimed to be wise, but then became fools. As a result, God gave them up to the sinful lusts of their heart to sexual impurity. Wait, so Paul is already talking about sexual impurity, meaning that they weren't in "loving, committed" relationships just 2 verses before verse 26-27. Then Paul says in 26 that "Because of this..." So what could Paul be talking about in 26, just two verses later, if he already said that God gave them up to sexual impurity in 24? The only thing more in verse 26-27 is homosexuality.

Now see the Leviticus scriptures:

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

If you want to twist these in the same way Bill Clinton twisted "sexual relations" in his mind, then maybe you have a case. But any normal person reads those and says, "oh, it says here, 'do not have sexual relations with another man', as it is detestable. (KJV uses the word 'Abomination')." It does not say, 'do not have sexual relations with Male prostitutes', or 'do not have abusive sexual relations with another man', it just says 'do not have sexual relations with another man, it is detestable.' That is a general statement that covers all forms of sexual relations with another man.

I submit that you have a massively uphill argument. Contrary to a thousand years of Biblical commentary. Favored by a small set of very recent shclarship which does not draw on new material. Yours is poor teaching. Kind of like reading scholarship that Jesus was really black; there's plenty of that.

Read the NIV Study Guide, Expositor's commentary on the NIV or KJV, Matthew Henry, Bruce Metzger, and report back. If I knew your profession I could denounce your argument for that as well.

I have to agree with Bob Crockett here. You have a massively uphill argument.

[Vance]

It is easy to overlook what this is saying because of the interpretation that has been ingrained into our minds through poor teaching, but read that carefully.

That sounds good. Let's see if you can live by it.

Paul is not talking about people who have had an attraction to the same sex since a young age,

Really? How do you know that is what is being talked about? You are reading things into the text that the text does NOT say.

which is the case for many homosexuals today,

But not the case for all. And this group may not even be in the majority. So the fact that you can find some homosexuals that don't fit within a specific description, that somehow negates the application of and the rather clear intent of these verses?

I find your whole attempt to explain away these verses rather pathetic.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Vance

[Analytics]

This sort of prediction is not something that can't be worked out with a statistical formula. I sort of wish Roger and I would be around then so we could discuss how far off the mark his notion is in this case, but alas, we won't.

Yes and no. We could measure the percentage of Mormons with views similar to those of Carmack for different cohorts, and observe how that changes over time. If a greater and greater plurality of members see things the way Carmack sees them, and the members with those views percolate up priesthood hierarchy, what’s going to happen? It is conceivable that in some future decade an apostle will say, “Forget everything that I ever said about this issue and that a score of dead apostles have said about this issue. The Lord has revealed that the long hoped-for day has arrived when the blessings of Celestial Marriage will be available to all righteous families, without regard to the gender of the spouses.”

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. But if you believe in continued revelation, in principle, you should allow for the possibility that future revelations will be challenging—even shocking—to Latter-day Saints of other generations.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Analytics

[lostinmd]

In about 80 years, the LDS Prophet will be somebody who is now a teenager. Most of the apostles will be younger than him. For the vast majority of the people in Western Civilization, this will be an issue that was settled decades earlier: the ideals of marriage will be about intangibles like love and committment--it will be considered illogocial and vulgar to think that the plumbing of the spouses has anything to do with it.

Certainly the Church can and will do whatever it wants, but the meaning of traditional family values will continue to evolve. If the church can change its stance on polygamy and blacks, it can certainly change its position on this.

100% correct, this issue will be settled in the next decade and SSM will be well received by leadership. This is very hard to grasp for older and/or more conservative LDS but much like African-Americans and the Priesthood, polygamous marriages, etc the doctrine will be modified.

[Rob Osborn]

God would rain down fire and brimstone just like Sodom and Gomorah if the church ever started aknowledging gay marriage! Luckily for us, the Church will never recognize homosexual practices- they are an abomination in the sight of the Lord!