Has Anyone On This Board Softened Their Views Of Gay Marriage?

[california boy]

It has been almost 4 years since prop 8 was passed. Much of the passing of prop 8 has been attributed to the contribution members of the church made to get it passed. A lot has happened since then. There has been a legal challenge to the proposition that is still working its way through the court system to the Supreme Court. Polls have shown for the first time that the majority of Americans favor gay marriage. The President of the United States has publicly come out in support of gay marriage. (perhaps to no one's surprise) And yesterday one of the leading supporters of prop 8 has announced that his views on gay marriage have changed. David Blankenhorn, who founded "American Values" to fight gay marriage has come out in support of gay marriage. This is a guy that was one of the leading forces in passing prop 8. He was the one that the supporters of prop 8 put on the witness as an expert witness to defend prop 8. Today in the New York Times he has written a piece on How My View on Gay Marriage Changed.

This isn't a thread about the pro and cons of gay marriage. We certainly have had enough of those. This is a thread asking the question if anyone on this board has also softened their views of gay marriage. I am not asking if your religious beliefs on this issue has changed. I am asking if there is room for equality on this issue and room for religious belief.

I would encourage you to read his entire piece, but here is just one quote from it.

I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens. And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.

[Somebodyz]

My view has not changed.

[Tacenda]

Out of my extended family we have two that are openly gay (niece & nephew). One time on a family vacation, we (all the in laws) were watching the news when it showed the protestors of Prop 8 (my son was on a mission in Oakland, Ca. during it) and I blurted out that I thought the gays just want to be married to make it moral, instead of just living together, just as the heteorsexuals do. And boy did I get the looks. I had to shut up fast. I still feel this way. No more, no less but keep my mouth shut around family.

[John Ping Pong]

My views on the subject of gay marriage have changed.

Whereas I was once against it solely because the Church was against it, I am now unable to see any rational or moral objection to it.

[SamIam]

My views on the subject of gay marriage have changed.

Whereas I was once against it solely because the Church was against it, I am now unable to see any rational or moral objection to it.

I posted this thought on another thread yesterday - I put it here with some limited modifications to match this thread - it reflects pretty clearly my stance:

On same gender unions (SGU). The Church, ..., has granted unto Caesar what is Caesars in declaring that officially they have no problem with legal definitions that provide rights and privileges to partners of SGS’s that are equal to a man and a women in marriage. In other words make them equal in all manners according to the laws of the land. However, the origins of the definition of marriage are and always have been the purview of the religious perspective.

Changing the definition should be a moot point if all that is wanted is the same rights and privileges. However, for some reason it is all but moot and has been hailed an egregious affront but for a few words in a law book that will provide no more than Caesar can ever provide to a union for those who achieve the definition change. They can have all the equality they seek without venturing an assault on the definition of a word that they do not respect.

However, to the religious institutions that teach that principle of marriage as a union between a man and a women as a holy principle of God it would have dramatic and potentially crippling impact in terms of charitable donations and their use, further moral decline amongst our youth and government involvement in the acceptable doctrines that can be taught without encouraging interference from a governmental perspective. This is the venue of God and the church is absolutely right to protect that venue as representatives that sustain God’s law.

To complete the thought...my stance has not changed in content. Give them what they say want with the exception of giving them what they cannot ever have - a relationship that is sanctioned by God upon the conditions of what marriage as a sacred union is defined to encompass. My stance has changed in the depth of my distrust of the people pushing some agenda that does not square up with what they are saying. Somebody is fibbing. To clarify, I have had many gay friends over the years. I have no trouble with them as individuals and in our interactions there has always been candor and respect for our differing opinions. However, I have as much sorrow for their immoral choices as I would for a man that committed adultery or another that could not free himself from pornography, or another that engaged in satisfying any of the immoral aspects of the appetites of the carnal man that all of us struggle against- or should at least.

[wenglund]

My position hasn't soften (it has actually become more solidified in terms of confidence and conviction), though I have become increasingly bored by the issue and think it has been given far greater attention than it deserves--which makes me hesitate responding to the OP on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 23, 2012 by wenglund

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

My views have changed but only on a philosophical ground of a right versus a privilege. A right is given whether you like it or not, whether you are good or not. A privilege is earned for doing good things, and once given, can be taken away for doing bad things.

Marriage under that context is a privilege, not a right. Certain constraints have to be reached in order for marriage to happen, and a marriage is so easily broken up in divorce.

[Hamilton Porter]

My views have softened, my stance has not.

[Zeta-Flux]

This is a thread asking the question if anyone on this board has also softened their views of gay marriage.

In a sense, yes. I view marriage as comprising at least three distinct societal roles/duties. (1) Forming partnerships which are meant to protect one another. In particular, the partners become each others caregivers. (2) Bearing and raising children (again, just to make it clear, I view this as a societal role, not necessarily the role of each and every couple). (3) Forming monetary partnership, including shared assets, shared debt, and shared benefits from jobs.

I am all for separating these roles in terms of societal benfits/laws. Anyone should be able to walk into the local city building, and for a moderate fee, fill out a form which says "Person A is my caregiver." or "Person A is my co-asset sharer" etc... When it is a marriage, however, they would need to check all of the boxes jointly, and need to be opposite gender so as to even possibly fulfil (2).

[BlueDreams]

No...but I remember when I was thinking about it a ton. I wanted to agree with it to be honest. It was years ago, but I was on this board and others, had talked about it, thought about it, and could understand the arguments for it pretty clearly. I couldn't get past the fact that I simply couldn't support it. In my heart it still feels wrong and I decided I wouldn't be able to vote for it. I'm fine with civil unions and always have been.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

No...but I remember when I was thinking about it a ton. I wanted to agree with it to be honest. It was years ago, but I was on this board and others, had talked about it, thought about it, and could understand the arguments for it pretty clearly. I couldn't get past the fact that I simply couldn't support it. In my heart it still feels wrong and I decided I wouldn't be able to vote for it. I'm fine with civil unions and always have been.

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

Why would post Prop 8 events change anyone's view? Are people so weak-minded that they just go with the flow?

[Aliwe]

Why would post Prop 8 events change anyone's view? Are people so weak-minded that they just go with the flow?

It's just a generational thing. The young'uns these days just don't see the problem with two fellas or two womenfolk getting hitched, and there's steadily more young'uns and fewer of the old guard.

[DBMormon]

I have over the last 5 years learned to care for and care about all god's children. I am more accepting of the individual. I am also happy to see them get the same rights and protection. I am not for allowing the act of Homosexuality to become a non-sin and here is why.

If we give permission to any individual who says they have feelings they can't help, and because the feelings are natural they in turn should not be considered sin. so say we do that we accept people based on their feelings being natural. Then we now face a very slippery slope. While Homosexuality is not a crime, we open the door to a plethora of situations where little by little we perhaps ok other such acts on similar justification EX: child molestors, drug abusers, and at the extreme Serial killers. While I am not suggesting hate towards those with same sex attraction I also ask that the grounds at which we have moved towards permiting it is also the same grounds many other awful crimes could occur legally under. The only thing stopping it then would be moralism and as soon as we as the majority of the group feel those things are ok then that becomes the next thing worth fighting for and legalized.

Give them rights and protection, but I can't see how the church can allow it as non-sin. That Said if the prophet received a revelation tomorrow, I reserve the right to pray and ponder and see if I need to change my beliefs.

[Joseph Antley]

I have always been against gay marriage because I have perceived the Church as asking me to be. I don't have a strong rational argument for that viewpoint, and I am not sure that the Church has put forward one. Whereas I used to be appalled at the idea of homosexuality, having actually met many homosexuals, my views have certainly been softened.

I can almost guarantee that BYU students overall are much more sympathetic to homosexuality now that gay BYU students can be more public about the plight that they are in.

[Deborah]

My views have not changed. I've always had gay friends and family members and I love being around them but I do not agree with trying to redefine marriage to fit a minority. Never have and don't see how anyone who understands the purpose of marriage, particularly in the church, can.

[Joseph Antley]

Never have and don't see how anyone who understands the purpose of marriage, particularly in the church, can.

Part of the problem might be in defining "the purpose of marriage."

[CV75]

Today in the New York Times he has written a piece on How My View on Gay Marriage Changed.

My views have not changed: same-sex marriage is an oxymoron of sorts; I would oppose same sex civil union because society seems to view civil union as identical to marriage; I do not believe either is a civil right; I support other legal arrangements that ensure civil rights for gay people. In a society where God and religion are accepted as part of the equation in civil / public discourse, protection of marriage and civil rights (which I think cover the other values Brinkerton laid out) can eventually be achieved without compromising either.

[Deborah]

Part of the problem might be in defining "the purpose of marriage."

The problem is we'd have to redefine the purpose of marriage.

[selek1]

I am asking if there is room for equality on this issue and room for religious belief.

Nothing like slipping in a little question begging in an ostensibly "neutral" thread.

Neither my stance nor my resolve has waivered.

If anything- little rehetorical jabs like the one above serve only to harden that resolve.

[Joseph Antley]

The problem is we'd have to redefine the purpose of marriage.

You're acting like there is already a consensus on what the "purpose of marriage" is.

[Deborah]

You're acting like there is already a consensus on what the "purpose of marriage" is.

Here is the traditional definition: "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law." (From this website: http://www.civilmarriagecivilright.com/definitions.html

Primarily marriage was for the purpose of procreation and establishing a sound foundation for rearing children. And yes people who can't have children marry, but then they can adopt. Older couples beyond child-bearing marry, but it has always been as man and woman.

[Joseph Antley]

Here is the traditional definition: "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law." (From this website: http://www.civilmarr...efinitions.html

Primarily marriage was for the purpose of procreation and establishing a sound foundation for rearing children. And yes people who can't have children marry, but then they can adopt. Older couples beyond child-bearing marry, but it has always been as man and woman.

Traditionally we also did not understand that some people were born homosexual and had no choice in the matter. Now that we understand that, shouldn't they also have the right to a legal relationship and the legal benefits that come with that?

The "traditional definition" argument does not hold water very tightly, for me anyway. Something being traditional does not always make it good or even beyond improvement.

[selek1]

Traditionally we also did not understand that some people were born homosexual and had no choice in the matter. Now that we understand that, shouldn't they also have the right to a legal relationship and the legal benefits that come with that?

Do we know any such thing?

Neither science nor the Church has established "born homosexual" to be immutable truth.

[Joseph Antley]

Do we know any such thing?

Neither science nor the Church has established "born homosexual" to be immutable truth.

I know a number of homosexual LDS youth who would do anything to be heterosexual. It's heartbreaking. I don't really need a scientific study to confirm that.