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

[Brian 2.0]

My views changed. While I did not give money or help in the campaign efforts, I did vote for Prop 8 and I would not today.

I also do not feel that the if someone grants someone the right to do something, that that automatically make the person granting the right approve of the action resulting. You can give homosexual couples the right to marry and still believe homosecuality is a sin.

Personally I don't view it as a sin anymore and I also just wish government got out of all marriages. Civil unions only. Across the board. You can get married by whatever religious or non-religious entity you want and have it mean whatever you want, but it doesn't hold legal weight. Only the civil union does. Separate it completely. That'd be what I'd do if I made the call.

[Verum]

However, the origins of the definition of marriage are and always have been the purview of the religious perspective.

But even if that is true, just because something has always been doesn't mean it should always be, right? And perhaps the government definition of marriage being associated with religious perspectives is precisely the issue at hand that may require clarification or change.

[wenglund]

What a hasty generalization, Wade. How amusing. It is fascinating how 'meaningful' words become the center of meaningless arguments. Traditional and orthodox are NOT synonymous with 'truth', 'correct', 'right' or 'godly'.

What an bizarre, knee-jerk reaction to my thoughtful post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamilton Porter]

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.

I'm hoping there will be a pharmaceutical treatment for homosexuality. They've already made gay rats straight. It should be coming around soon.

[wenglund]

This is currently my position as well. The government has absolutely no right to tell people they can't get married. That's not their call.

With the government, and from a purely secular perspective, the issue isn't so much who can get married or not, but rather which marriages would be reasonable for the government to choose to legitimize--i.e. which marriages are in the states interest.

Among other things, there are costs to the government in litigating marital and familial issues, and thus the government has a vested interest in assuring that the benefits to the state of certain legitimizations, exceed the costs. They do so by way of congressional hearings, research, and debate, and subsequent regulation. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for the government to be involved.

As things now stand, it has long been determined that the benefit derived from governmental legitimization of certain heterosexual marriages, does exceed the cost. The question that has yet to be answered in the affirmative, is whether the same holds true for so-called homosexual marriages---and some may believe that there is evidence to suggest that it does not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 25, 2012 by wenglund

[phaedrus ut]

About 10 years ago I was the typical LDS male born and raised in Utah, living in the northeast for college and working in a major city. I noticed a employee from another department from a far was quite a flaming guy and really unapologeticly openly gay. Observing him from a distance he made me uncomfortable. After a consolidate of departments circumstances have it that his new desk is directly across from mine. I remember mentioning to my wife that this "flaming gay guy" is now going to be sitting across from me. After a few days my discomfort disappeared and we began to have casual conversations. After a few weeks I noticed that he told me stories about his life he deliberately used gender neutral language and avoided subjects that he assumed might make me uncomfortable. I realized that this flaming gay guy was actually trying to be considerate of me by avoiding what he assumed may make me uncomfortable.

After a few months we became what I considered friends and as I was reflecting on my change of feelings I realized that I was a bigot. My prejudice against gay people had me disliking and uncomfortable with a person I had never met. I thought about other such moments in my life including a really tasteless comment I made about a gay cousin who died of aids.

It was a eye opening moment for me. I realized that I hadn't created my whole belief system myself that that my core values needed to be reexamined to determine which were actually my beliefs and which I had adopted.

My view on gay marriage are simple. Being gay isn't just about sex. It's about who you want to hold hands with at the park, who you want to see a movie with on date night, it's who you want to call first when you have good news, it's about who you love. People who love each other should be able to be married.

Phaedrus

[BookofMormonLuvr]

My views of government sanctioned SSM has softened, my personal moral objections to it have not. I still believe homosexual activity, whether in or out of marriage, is sin. But I no longer believe we should legislate morality in this manner. satan wanted to force everyone into obedience- we should not be using his example as a pattern to follow with regard to this sin. We should preach repentance and let the chips fall where they may.

The point you begin demanding the others accommodate your lifestyle (ie,, churches forced to marry SS couples, wedding photags forced to do wedding pictures, etc...) you lose my "support" completely and I will fight you tooth and nail.

[Tacenda]

I'm hoping there will be a pharmaceutical treatment for homosexuality. They've already made gay rats straight. It should be coming around soon.

You've probably never known a gay person who is close to you or you would not have said this. Just sayin'.

[Weston Krogstadt]

My view has not changed. The church will never accept gay marriage, neither will I.

[Hayds]

Edited because the original version was too long.

Let gays get married. Do not force the LDS church to compromise its values or re-org the church to allow its acceptance.

Both parties should both be able to get their way.

Gays, if you want to be LDS, then you will have to sacrifice a same sex relationship if you want to maintain a status in the church. Or, go to a church who accepts same sex marriages, or, start your own gay themed LDS church (It wouldn't be the first off-shoot of the LDS faith.)

LDS people: Let gays do their thing especially if they aren't interested in joining your church. Let them have their agency and live their lives the way they choose without protesting and donating money to causes to thwart their lifestyle.

Honestly, I don't see why both parties can't just go their own ways and do their separate thing without forcing each one to bend to the will of what the other party thinks is right.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Hayds

[Calm]

You've probably never known a gay person who is close to you or you would not have said this. Just sayin'.

What if he has known a gay person who didn't want to be gay? Couldn't he be looking forward to this person getting his desire fulfilled?

Would this be any different than someone wishing there were options for a person who desired to have a sex change so as to have the opportunity to do that if that individual desired to do so?

This reminds me to a certain extent of the controversy over cochlear implants in the deaf community.

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

My views have not changed. I was for marriage equality in 2008, and still am today, just as strongly. It was not a flippant decision, and came after a lot of prayer and soul-searching. The only thing that has changed is that now, I am a little less scared of expressing my opinion on the subject to other Mormons. The church seems to be okay with people disagreeing with it on this topic, and nobody I am aware of has ever been subject to church discipline solely for holding political views in favor of marriage equality. It's like the Mormons in the 1930s who disagreed with the church's stand against repealing Prohibition. I would have voted to repeal Prohibition, too, even though I don't drink alcohol.

[wenglund]

My view on gay marriage are simple. Being gay isn't just about sex. It's about who you want to hold hands with at the park, who you want to see a movie with on date night, it's who you want to call first when you have good news, it's about who you love. People who love each other should be able to be married. Phaedrus

To me, this is not just a simple view of the issue, but perhaps quite overly simplistic--a warm and fuzzy sound bite that lacks even a modest grasp of the role of government in things like marriage, but the role of marriage itself.

My best friend had a dog that he loved more than just about anything. His dog was the first thing he wanted to see when he got home, and was the thing he wanted to be with most everywhere he went. And, while I admired the depth and breadth and value of that relationship, it never occurred to me that it was deserving, on that basis, of being solemnized in marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not trying to be contrarian on this, but my views have changed. I have worked with and known many homosexuals and lesbians. I got along fine with them, was even instrumental in getting a gay subordinate of mine promoted, because he deserved it professionally. And I hope that and try to exercise charity towards all of Gods children, like I have done all my life.

HOWEVER. I have come to realize that many Gays-at least the activists-don't want marriage, they don't want equal rights, they want their sexuality to be celebrated, they want anyone who dares express moral discomfort with that sexuality to suffer the condemnation of society on the same level that we now condemn the KKK, they will not be satisfied until we have gay temple marriages and lesbian apostles. (Not saying this would happen, but this level of integration is what they are after and will demand).

Are you basing your views, then, on the presumed ulterior motives these "activists," rather than on the merits of the issue? Personally, I don't know of any gay or lesbian people who want to force Mormons to perform same-sex marriages in LDS temples. Usually, in fact, LGBTQ activists are strong supporters of the Bill of Rights, including its religious freedom guarantees. To require same-sex marriages in Mormon temples, you would have to repeal the First Amendment. Think back to pre-1978, and nobody from the civil rights movement wanted to force Mormons to perform temple marriages of black people, either.

[wenglund]

Honestly, I don't see why both parties can't just go their own ways and do their separate thing without forcing each one to bend to the will of what the other party thinks is right.

Even more honestly, you don't have a sufficient grasp of the issue. This isn't a matter of leaving each to their own, but one of state interest--doing what works and what works best for all parties and the society as a whole. It is about costs/benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hayds]

To me, this is not just a simple view of the issue, but perhaps quite overly simplistic--a warm and fuzzy sound bite that lacks even a modest grasp of the role of government in things like marriage, but the role of marriage itself.

My best friend had a dog that he loved more than just about anything. His dog was the first thing he wanted to see when he got home, and was the thing he wanted to be with most everywhere he went. And, while I admired the depth and breadth and value of that relationship, it never occurred to me that it was deserving, on that basis, of being solemnized in marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apples and Oranges. A dog is not a consenting adult, and its wacky to compare two adults who consent of their own free will to a human and a dog which is not the same thing. Dogs don't get married, nor are they capable of understanding what marriage is. I don't believe the age old argument that if homosexual marriage is accepted that bestiality or pedophilia is next in line for mainstream acceptance.

[Hayds]

Even more honestly, you don't have a sufficient grasp of the issue. This isn't a matter of leaving each to their own, but one of state interest--doing what works and what works best for all parties and the society as a whole. It is about costs/benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I feel like I have a decent grasp of the issue. I think the societal impact is minimal. I think the gay population makes up a very minute percentage of the human population. How is this small percentage of gays getting married going to be any different than the current small percentage of gays who are already cohabiting together as if they were married? The only difference is a piece of paper and some tax deductions.

[Jaybear]

To me, this is not just a simple view of the issue, but perhaps quite overly simplistic--a warm and fuzzy sound bite that lacks even a modest grasp of the role of government in things like marriage, but the role of marriage itself.

My best friend had a dog that he loved more than just about anything. His dog was the first thing he wanted to see when he got home, and was the thing he wanted to be with most everywhere he went. And, while I admired the depth and breadth and value of that relationship, it never occurred to me that it was deserving, on that basis, of being solemnized in marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Did the dog feel the same way about your best friend? Forcing a dog to marry a human against its will, just seems wrong.

BTW, my views have not changed. I still support gay marriage and oppose human/dog marriages. I also realize that make me a hypocrite to dog lovers.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Jaybear

[phaedrus ut]

My best friend had a dog that he loved more than just about anything. His dog was the first thing he wanted to see when he got home, and was the thing he wanted to be with most everywhere he went. And, while I admired the depth and breadth and value of that relationship, it never occurred to me that it was deserving, on that basis, of being solemnized in marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes the old people are going to marry dogs argument. It's brought up all the time(originally as a argument against interracial marriage) but it's so absent of logic it's laughable. Could a monkey be President of the United States. Can a horse complete a undergraduate education? Can my dog enter into a real estate contract to list his dog house on the MLS?

No animals are incapable of doing such things and are clearly incapable of giving consent. It's the same reason we wouldn't someone marry a brain dead patient in a coma. That person cannot give consent.

If you're going to use the slippery slope argument the only one that works is that gay marriage will lead into other marital relationships between consenting adults like polygamy.

Phaedrus

[USU78]

I've not altered my thinking in the slightest . . . it is as pernicious a practice and destructive an evil as society faces.

[TAO]

Are you basing your views, then, on the presumed ulterior motives these "activists," rather than on the merits of the issue? Personally, I don't know of any gay or lesbian people who want to force Mormons to perform same-sex marriages in LDS temples. Usually, in fact, LGBTQ activists are strong supporters of the Bill of Rights, including its religious freedom guarantees. To require same-sex marriages in Mormon temples, you would have to repeal the First Amendment. Think back to pre-1978, and nobody from the civil rights movement wanted to force Mormons to perform temple marriages of black people, either.

Cobalt, the difficulty is that alot of the time, these 'activists' are the ones who are passing laws. Yes, most gay and lesbian couples don't care about educational issues; they just want the ability to marry legally. But the activists, both those who are straight and gay, want far more, and really push hard for it in law. And that creates a complex dilemna.

It's a difficult issue, definately, and I'm not going to try and tilt it one way or the other. Chances are, at least one side is going to be slighted.

Edited June 26, 2012 by TAO

[Damien the Leper]

Apples and Oranges. A dog is not a consenting adult, and its wacky to compare two adults who consent of their own free will to a human and a dog which is not the same thing. Dogs don't get married, nor are they capable of understanding what marriage is. I don't believe the age old argument that if homosexual marriage is accepted that bestiality or pedophilia is next in line for mainstream acceptance.

Such a comparison is a slippery slope argument. Laughable at best. Pay no heed to such fallacy.

[wenglund]

Apples and Oranges. A dog is not a consenting adult, and its wacky to compare two adults who consent of their own free will to a human and a dog which is not the same thing. Dogs don't get married, nor are they capable of understanding what marriage is. I don't believe the age old argument that if homosexual marriage is accepted that bestiality or pedophilia is next in line for mainstream acceptance.

Wrong. The issue of consent wasn't part of the exchange in question, and so it had no bearing on the analogy. The analogy, in principle, compared apples to apples, whether you comprehended it or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Yes the old people are going to marry dogs argument. It's brought up all the time(originally as a argument against interracial marriage) but it's so absent of logic it's laughable. Could a monkey be President of the United States. Can a horse complete a undergraduate education? Can my dog enter into a real estate contract to list his dog house on the MLS?

No animals are incapable of doing such things and are clearly incapable of giving consent. It's the same reason we wouldn't someone marry a brain dead patient in a coma. That person cannot give consent.

If you're going to use the slippery slope argument the only one that works is that gay marriage will lead into other marital relationships between consenting adults like polygamy.

Phaedrus

You clearly lack the acumen to correctly comprehend my simple point. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Such a comparison is a slippery slope argument. Laughable at best. Pay no heed to such fallacy.

Evidently, some people here don't understand the important difference between an illustration and an argument. Perhaps it is part and parcel of knee-jerk reactions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-