Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Calm]

I would like however to hear from others about this subject.

To me, saying that the scriptures talk about homosexual sex as a sin, but do not mention homosexual marriage so it may not be seen as a sin by God is like saying the scriptures talk about killing as a sin, but do not talk about serial killing so it may not be seen as a sin by God. (I am not comparing homosexuality to killing, I am just using killing to show what I think is called a category mistake, if someone whose brain is more awake can come up with a less drastic global sin that does not specify a specific condition of that type of sin, I will be happy to adopt it.)

I realize that heterosexual sex is described as a sin outside of marriage, but is commanded within marriage; but it seems to me that if God was concerned enough to make clear enough the difference between fornication and chaste marriage relationships in the case of heterosexuality, that he would have been concerned enough in the case of homosexuality to do the same thing if there was an actual difference between how he viewed homosexual sex within or without the bonds of marriage. To say that because he didn't identify the one specific case as a sin when he had directed that other forms of it are a sin in such very, very strong terms and therefore that allows for one form to be classed as a nonsin.....just seems to me to be pushing the bounds of common sense.

[Deardorff]

Yes, it is. Just as is the fact the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution will be the undoing of the bigoted States who pass laws trying to avoid recognition of the marriages from those States where it is legal.

It is the moral equivalent of racial discrimination.

The fact two of the same sex does not harm my marriage or the marriage of anyone else. It does scare bigots.

[Bikeemikey]

I am from Hamilton, but am currently in Queensland, Australia.

A lot of my family live in temple view.

[Kemara]

A lot of my family live in temple view.

I probably know them.

[Bikeemikey]

You do realize that I have never suggested that God doesn't think that homosexuality is a sin. What I did say is that we don't know how God feels about homosexuality within the confinds of marriage. I did not say that God doesn't think homosexuality is a sin. If you think I have, please post what I said. I seem to constantly get misquoted on this issue as you can tell by the lenghty disclaimers I have decided to put in my posts. If you can not find such a post, I would really appreciate an apology.

Sure fine I'm sorry... You didn't say that specifically. What you said is that homosexuality may not be sin in he eyes of god if the couple is married.

It doesn't change the fact that the argument you did make is still not a good one. It also does not need to be made, nor does it help or support, the objective of making the homosexual community equal recipients of advantage from the us govt.

It is a direct theological attack. There is no definitive answer to it - responses to it will be on a religion by religion basis. Your position is basically Christ didn't say anything specifically about it therefore all those LDS prophets who have said something about it were not acting as prophets when they may the claims.

I am open to the idea that the LDS Christian response to homosexuality is fundamentally cultural bigotry, the time may come this is shown to be true. However, the argument you have made is a huge stretch.

Your position requires statements made by prophets that are not directly supported by statements made by christ to be measured by the moral disposition of the society the prophet is speaking to - this is the opposite of the idea of modern prophecy. You may end up being right... Your argument will never get you to that conclusion.

[Bikeemikey]

Well said sir, well said.

I don't disagree with wade comment... It is well said. We should always remember that we are dealing with people... People with complex emotions, feelings and experiences. It is absolutely stand for our beliefs, an stand for them strongly. This is something that Cali-boy has specially stated he supports - religious speech and expression.

None of that means that we need to do it in a way that dehumanizes those we are talking about. We can stand by our positions when we don't engage in such extreme comparisons. They don't help.

[wenglund]

Yes, it is. Just as is the fact the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution will be the undoing of the bigoted States who pass laws trying to avoid recognition of the marriages from those States where it is legal.

It is the moral equivalent of racial discrimination.

The fact two of the same sex does not harm my marriage or the marriage of anyone else. It does scare bigots.

Were you thinking that tossing around the pejorative of "bigot" is somehow a substitute for a reasoned response? If so, you would be mistaken. The people you are speaking to on this thread are skilled in critical thought and thus not persuaded by this kind of mindless appeals to emotion. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't disagree with wade comment... It is well said. We should always remember that we are dealing with people... People with complex emotions, feelings and experiences. It is absolutely stand for our beliefs, an stand for them strongly. This is something that Cali-boy has specially stated he supports - religious speech and expression.

None of that means that we need to do it in a way that dehumanizes those we are talking about. We can stand by our positions when we don't engage in such extreme comparisons. They don't help.

I agree with you as a general rule. I just think that in this case legitimate and instructive comparisons like the one in question (which, as I pointed out, isn't logically dehumanizing), particularly when other explanations and comparisons have failed to bring certain parties to cognition, are being unwarrantably dismissed because of overly-sensitive feelings. I believe we as a country have been dis-benefited by too quickly deferring to emotions at the expense of sound and practical reasoning--i.e. political correctness run a muck. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

I agree with you as a general rule. I just think that in this case legitimate and instructive comparisons like the one in question (which, as I pointed out, isn't logically dehumanizing), particularly when other explanations and comparisons have failed to bring certain parties to cognition, are being unwarrantably dismissed because of overly-sensitive feelings. I believe we as a country have been dis-benefited by too quickly deferring to emotions at the expense of sound and practical reasoning--i.e. political correctness run a muck. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You could be correct - i have never had a conversation that has gone well after I have employed that analogy.

I am not sure that the analogy itself is reasonable.

[Kemara]

We can stand by our positions when we don't engage in such extreme comparisons. They don't help.

I agree with you, what we disagree on is what constitutes extreme. I dont believe anything extreme was posited.

[Bikeemikey]

I agree with you, what we disagree on is what constitutes extreme. I dont believe anything extreme was posited.

I agree with your observation of the underlying disagreement.

[Nemesis]

Yes, it is. Just as is the fact the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution will be the undoing of the bigoted States who pass laws trying to avoid recognition of the marriages from those States where it is legal.

It is the moral equivalent of racial discrimination.

The fact two of the same sex does not harm my marriage or the marriage of anyone else. It does scare bigots.

Knock off the inflammatory posts and name calling. Learn to discuss or you will be escorted off the board.

Nemesis

[wenglund]

You could be correct - i have never had a conversation that has gone well after I have employed that analogy.

I am not sure that the analogy itself is reasonable.

I am confident that it is.

However, these discussions tend not to go well regardless because certain parties want what they want and will be offended by most anything that is said that may chance preventing them from getting it--and I am not just talking about their not getting their way with legalized marriage. I have been discussing gay issues with gay advocates for several decades now, and this seems to be the one constant in each incremental movement they have attempted to take the country.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 11, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

To me, saying that the scriptures talk about homosexual sex as a sin, but do not mention homosexual marriage so it may not be seen as a sin by God is like saying the scriptures talk about killing as a sin, but do not talk about serial killing so it may not be seen as a sin by God. (I am not comparing homosexuality to killing, I am just using killing to show what I think is called a category mistake, if someone whose brain is more awake can come up with a less drastic global sin that does not specify a specific condition of that type of sin, I will be happy to adopt it.)

I realize that heterosexual sex is described as a sin outside of marriage, but is commanded within marriage; but it seems to me that if God was concerned enough to make clear enough the difference between fornication and chaste marriage relationships in the case of heterosexuality, that he would have been concerned enough in the case of homosexuality to do the same thing if there was an actual difference between how he viewed homosexual sex within or without the bonds of marriage. To say that because he didn't identify the one specific case as a sin when he had directed that other forms of it are a sin in such very, very strong terms and therefore that allows for one form to be classed as a nonsin.....just seems to me to be pushing the bounds of common sense.

You may be right. I just don't really know.

[california boy]

Sure fine I'm sorry... You didn't say that specifically. What you said is that homosexuality may not be sin in he eyes of god if the couple is married.

It doesn't change the fact that the argument you did make is still not a good one. It also does not need to be made, nor does it help or support, the objective of making the homosexual community equal recipients of advantage from the us govt.

It is a direct theological attack. There is no definitive answer to it - responses to it will be on a religion by religion basis. Your position is basically Christ didn't say anything specifically about it therefore all those LDS prophets who have said something about it were not acting as prophets when they may the claims.

I am open to the idea that the LDS Christian response to homosexuality is fundamentally cultural bigotry, the time may come this is shown to be true. However, the argument you have made is a huge stretch.

Your position requires statements made by prophets that are not directly supported by statements made by christ to be measured by the moral disposition of the society the prophet is speaking to - this is the opposite of the idea of modern prophecy. You may end up being right... Your argument will never get you to that conclusion.

Sorry if you feel I am making some kind of case. I actually am just asking the question and wondering. Like I said, you may be right as well. I really don't know. Is all I know is what has actually been said on the subject. The rest is guess work for me. I certainly know the churches position on the subject. That part is clear.

Thanks for the apology. A lot of people would just ignore the request.

[california boy]

I am confident that it is.

However, these discussions tend not to go well regardless because certain parties want what they want and will be offended by most anything that is said that may chance preventing them from getting it--and I am not just talking about their not getting their way with legalized marriage. I have been discussing gay issues with gay advocates for several decades now, and this seems to be the one constant in each incremental movement they have attempted to take the country.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As you know, I am usually not impressed with your arguments against gay marriage. I personally think they really have no legal bearing on the issue. But quite honestly it really doesn't matter whether I think they or weak or whether you think they are strong. This is an issue that has been heard in 2 courts. Both have ruled that denying equal rights for gays is not in line with the laws of this land. In the next couple of weeks the Supreme Court of the U.S. will decide whether to hear the prop 8 case. At that point, all your best arguments will be used to make the case that gays don't have the right to marry same sex partners. We will just have to see if your arguments are enough to rule in your favor.

[wenglund]

As you know, I am usually not impressed with your arguments against gay marriage. I personally think they really have no legal bearing on the issue. But quite honestly it really doesn't matter whether I think they or weak or whether you think they are strong. This is an issue that has been heard in 2 courts. Both have ruled that denying equal rights for gays is not in line with the laws of this land. In the next couple of weeks the Supreme Court of the U.S. will decide whether to hear the prop 8 case. At that point, all your best arguments will be used to make the case that gays don't have the right to marry same sex partners. We will just have to see if your arguments are enough to rule in your favor.

Frankly, it wouldn't matter to you even if the two federal courts in California had ruled the same way that multiple courts had ruled previously, and the latest court in Hawaii has since ruled, upholding DOMA's and traditional marriage laws. As I said, you aren't interested in or persuaded by practical and well reasoned arguments. You want what you want regardless. Your's is a self interest, and not what is in everyone's best interest. And, you are not alone in this. A growing portion of the U.S. seems to have followed suit, and may now be the majority. I get that. If the SCOTUS just happens to side with the bizarre "reasoning" of the gay judge in California, or if they side with the differing yet still odd "reasoning" of the federal circuit court, and divert from the sound reasoning of numerous state and federal courts dating back from last month to 1973 who have ruled in favor of traditional marriage, then you will get your way, and baring a successful bid for a constitutional amendment if this happens, I will accept the outcome and go on with my life and live, along with everyone else, with whatever consequences.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 12, 2012 by wenglund

[TAO]

I am not talking about what the church thinks is moral or immoral. I am only talking about what God thinks is moral or immoral. We certainly know that Got thinks that marriage is moral. We DON'T know whether God thinks that ssm is moral. He has not said anything about that subject by His words while he was on this earth or by revelation to His prophets. So at this time the policy on ssm is just that, policy.

I understand that some believe the proclamation on the family is scripture. The church however has not recognized it as such. That is ALL I am saying. Currently the proclamation is a statement of belief. And currently the policy of ssm is a statement of belief.Both will remain such until such time as the prophet receives a revelation about them, This is the same as blacks holding the priesthood. That policy was a statement of belief until God corrected that policy in 1978. Who knows, God may never reveal anything about ssm. If that is the case, then this policy will stay in force for eternity. I am not expecting or hoping for a revelation on this matter from God. I am only identifying the current state of that policy.

That's fair. You may believe what you want. I will, however, believe it is seen as close to if not the same as one of the official statements of the church. That is just my perspective on it.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[TAO]

Weg, just a bit too strong, imho. Everybody is a self-ineterested actor to one degree or another; that includes us. There isn't something inhernetly wrong with being self-interested.

[wenglund]

Weg, just a bit too strong, imho. Everybody is a self-ineterested actor to one degree or another; that includes us. There isn't something inhernetly wrong with being self-interested.

To an extent I agree. It all depends upon the cost to others of the self-interest or the lack of balance in interest for others. I don't see this as a controversial point, just not all that flattering to certain parties. Not to brag, but my interest in this issue has been entirely selfless. I will gain nothing or lose nothing regardless. It is society as a whole, and homosexual individuals in particular, that I believe will lose given the direction things appear to be headed. But, I appreciate your conciliatory spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I suppose that heterosexuals should be somewhat flattered that certain homosexuals would want to imitate a decidedly heterosexual convention (i.e. marriage), and this for reasons beyond the governmental and insurance benefits derived from legal marriage since they can get those same benefits through domestic partnerships and civil unions and other legal channels. Evidently, there is something about heterosexual marriage, itself, that is to be envied.

It is just that, as explained, the enviable "something" exists for a reason that, from a legal standpoint, isn't relevant to homosexual relationships, and which may, in part, be lost through homosexual imitation. The special "something" may be tainted and diluted through inanely equating and legalizing the imitation. It is somewhat like how the value of an original painting, or a finely crafted watch, or a diamond, is greater and perhaps somewhat diminished by rip-offs.

Ironically, some homosexuals have even suggested that homosexual relationships are diminished by SSM. See, for example, here

http://www.againstequality.org/stuff/against-equality-queer-critiques-of-gay-marriage/

http://www.againstequality.org/about/marriage/

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

I suppose that heterosexuals should be somewhat flattered that certain homosexuals would want to imitate a decidedly heterosexual convention (i.e. marriage), and this for reasons beyond the governmental and insurance benefits derived from legal marriage since they can get those same benefits through domestic partnerships and civil unions and other legal channels. Evidently, there is something about heterosexual marriage, itself, that is to be envied.

It is just that, as explained, the enviable "something" exists for a reason that, from a legal standpoint, isn't relevant to homosexual relationships, and which may, in part, be lost through homosexual imitation. The special "something" may be tainted and diluted through inanely equating and legalizing the imitation. It is somewhat like how the value of an original painting, or a finely crafted watch, or a diamond, is greater and perhaps somewhat diminished by rip-offs.

Ironically, some homosexuals have even suggested that homosexual relationships are diminished by SSM. See, for example, here

http://www.againstequality.org/stuff/against-equality-queer-critiques-of-gay-marriage/

http://www.againstequality.org/about/marriage/

http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The same argument could be made between LDS temple marriage and all other forms of marriage.

This position is well noted, though the entities that would feel the perceived diminishment of marriage would be private religious organizations, not the govt, and as the govt is not in the business of prefrencing religions perceptions I still fail to see how this diminishment matters.

[wenglund]

The same argument could be made between LDS temple marriage and all other forms of marriage.

Indeed--though the argument would have nothing to do with governmental policy.

This position is well noted, though the entities that would feel the perceived diminishment of marriage would be private religious organizations, not the govt, and as the govt is not in the business of prefrencing religions perceptions I still fail to see how this diminishment matters.

I disagree with your fundamental premise that governments and society at large wouldn't feel the diminishing of marriage. To me, it is unavoidable. After all, the government got into the business of marriage (as defined as between a man and a woman) for secular reasons previously explained multiple times, which reasons have no application to homosexual relationships and may even be defied by those relationships. How could the government and society not feel that marriage is diminished through mangling and diluting the legal definition of that term and applying it to parties that defy the rationale for legal marriage to begin with? It is analogous to legally defining Naugahyde as "leather." Such a redefinition of "leather" can't help but diminish leather in the eyes of the government and society.

But, again, in a way I am flattered that homosexuals envy a decidedly heterosexual institution. My objection isn't to their envy, but rather what their envy has moved them to do--i.e. their unavoidably diminishing what is enviable through their attempts and successes in legally imitating the decidedly heterosexual institution.

And, I am not alone. As I pointed out, there are not a few gays who object to other gays enviously imitating heterosexuals. They don't like gay pride turning into gay coveting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 12, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

Indeed--though the argument would have nothing to do with governmental policy.

I disagree with your fundamental premise that governments and society at large wouldn't feel the diminishing of marriage. To me, it is unavoidable. After all, the government got into the business of marriage (as defined as between a man and a woman) for secular reasons previously explained multiple times, which reasons have no application to homosexual relationships and may even be defied by those relationships. How could the government and society not feel that marriage is diminished through mangling and diluting the legal definition of that term and applying it to parties that defy the rationale for legal marriage to begin with. It is analogous to legally defining Naugahyde as "leather." Such redefinition can't help but diminish leather in the eyes of the government and society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If society at large is being diminished by the change in marriage then it could possibly be an issue for govt. to tackle.

If such diminishment is occurring it will because one of the social advantages from the traditional implementation of marriage has declined. It would be measurable. For the govt. to respond it would also have to be a social issue that fits with in the domain of govt (you obviously think he govt should be involved in a lot more than I do).

Govt have the right to incentivize certain practices within society. I support that.

The people have the right to chose what mechanism will be employed as the incentive. I support that.

I also however am in favor of the incentive used by the govt not be a religious covenant and promise between religious believers and god. It really is that simple.

In addition, I do not think we are realizing the advantages of the current incentive system (marriage) as much as we nigh realize the advantages if we used one that actually targeted the objectives, rather than treat marriage as the objective and social good in its own right (another thing we disagree on).

[wenglund]

If society at large is being diminished by the change in marriage then it could possibly be an issue for govt. to tackle.

If such diminishment is occurring it will because one of the social advantages from the traditional implementation of marriage has declined. It would be measurable. For the govt. to respond it would also have to be a social issue that fits with in the domain of govt (you obviously think he govt should be involved in a lot more than I do).

Govt have the right to incentivize certain practices within society. I support that.

The people have the right to chose what mechanism will be employed as the incentive. I support that.

I also however am in favor of the incentive used by the govt not be a religious covenant and promise between religious believers and god. It really is that simple.

In addition, I do not think we are realizing the advantages of the current incentive system (marriage) as much as we nigh realize the advantages if we used one that actually targeted the objectives, rather than treat marriage as the objective and social good in its own right (another thing we disagree on).

My comments were only in regards to legal marriage--which is a governmental institution and not a religious institution, though religious marriages may be legalized by the government, and it is also not a covenant between God and people, but a license granted by the government to qualified people, though the license may granted to people, some, though certainly not all of whom may then use their licenses to participate in religious ceremonies where covenants are made between God and man.

And, my arguments and observation have generally been secular, and not religious, and apply to the society as a whole, and not necessarily to religions in particular.

Furthermore, even though I am open to the debatable claim that there may be better ways for governments to incentivize certain results than legalized marriage, it is a separate issue from whether legal marriage should be extended to same-sex couples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 12, 2012 by wenglund