Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[RobertAC]

^{On the downside are retention and the youth. The same demographic trends affecting the polls are affecting our youth and young adults. Prop 8 is one of the major reasons we are failing to retain the majority of our youth. What we teach simply does not match with their personal experience.}

It's a part of it Buckeye. But younger generations are also treating religion and spirituality as a smorgasbord. Being tied to a singular religious doctrine is being called into question, particularly where people are questioning the very existence of the supernatural. My sense is that the younger generation is less apt to call itself "Baptist," or "Catholic," "Mormon," or even "Christian."

The real challenge for the LDS church -- and indeed all other churches -- will be to effectively meet the needs of a membership that is gradually looking at religion as a personal, spiritual experience, rather than a spiritual experience that is dependent upon membership in a group.

[Buckeye]

This ignores rongo's paraphrase:

I'm not ignoring that statement, but just because it was said does not make it true. We may not like it - I don't - but the fact remains that there have been numeous declarations made by church leadership as to "the will of God" that we now reject. As one example, the explanations for the racial priesthood ban that we now dismiss as "folklore" were emphatically believed by church leadership in prior times - including by the first presidency - to be the will of the Lord. But just because they said the ban was God's will does not mean it was. Likewise, just because a general authority says that Prop 8 was God's will does not make it so.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

It's a part of it Buckeye. But younger generations are also treating religion and spirituality as a smorgasbord.

...

The youth I work with do not easily reject church teachings. For most teachings - chastity, word of wisdom, attendance at church, etc. - they find that their personal experiences in life confirm the teaching. In scriptural terms, they taste of the fruit and know it is good. But that is not the case for our teachings on homosexuality. So I don't think they are reject this teaching because it is unpopular. They reject it because they see that homosexuality in their friends does not cause harm.

[Calm]

I'm not ignoring that statement, but just because it was said does not make it true. We may not like it - I don't - but the fact remains that there have been numeous declarations made by church leadership as to "the will of God" that we now reject. As one example, the explanations for the racial priesthood ban that we now dismiss as "folklore" were emphatically believed by church leadership in prior times - including by the first presidency - to be the will of the Lord. But just because they said the ban was God's will does not mean it was. Likewise, just because a general authority says that Prop 8 was God's will does not make it so.

Got it.

So what is your response to the possibility that our leadership has misinterpreted a spiritual communication? Not just your feelings, but how are you acting upon it?

Add-on: would be interested in the response from any believing Saint as to what they do when this situation comes up for them.

Edited November 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[RobertAC]

The youth I work with do not easily reject church teachings. For most teachings - chastity, word of wisdom, attendance at church, etc. - they find that their personal experiences in life confirm the teaching. In scriptural terms, they taste of the fruit and know it is good. But that is not the case for our teachings on homosexuality. So I don't think they are reject this teaching because it is unpopular. They reject it because they see that homosexuality in their friends does not cause harm.

Do you find that there is a time when boys and girls tend to question the teachings/practices of the church? In my own church, there does seem to be a tension or a pull away from the church as an organization around 15-19 years of age.

[Buckeye]

Do you find that there is a time when boys and girls tend to question the teachings/practices of the church? In my own church, there does seem to be a tension or a pull away from the church as an organization around 15-19 years of age.

Yes, absolutely. And I encourage it (the questioning; not the pulling away). If their testimonies are going to be worth anything they have to question, doubt, probe and come to honest answers on their own. I very much want that to happen (or at least begin to happen) while they are still well within the fold of their families and youth groups where they can be supported, find answers, and learn from the examples of older saints who have walked those same steps.

When I talk about "youth" falling away, I mostly mean the young singles - 20 to 30 year olds - who have begun to gain sufficient life experiences (their own and watching others) by which to judge the fruit the gospel. I don't think most 15 year olds can do that. At least I couldn't at that age.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Buckeye

[california boy]

Very interesting outlook. I suppose this would be an example of "God working in mysterious ways."

I tend to agree with the other posters. It's only a matter of time when SSM is legally available throughout the country.

Looking Ahead: Seven States That Could Next Expand Rights for Same-Sex Couples

By Josh Israel on Nov 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Credit: AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

With Tuesday’s sweeping pro-LGBT victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and quite likely Washington state, marriage equality will be the law on the land in eight or nine states and the District of Columbia. Another five states have civil unions laws. The National Organization for Marriage has now lost its principal talking point and can no longer claim that every time voters considered marriage equality, equality loses — so it seems likely the number of states recognizing same-sex couples will continue to climb in the upcoming year.

Here are some states likely to consider the issue in the near future:

1. Colorado: While a 2006 constitutional amendment prevents the state legislature from enacting marriage equality, a civil unions bill was only defeated this year thanks to stunning maneuvers by Colorado Speaker of the House Frank McNulty ® to thwart the majority in his chamber. McNulty lost his majority Tuesday and his likely successor as Speaker, openly gay Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D), is the bill’s chief backer. Polling shows 70 percent of Coloradans support legal recognition for same-sex couples, so movement on this appears likely in 2013.

2. Minnesota: Not only did Minnesota voters defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions Tuesday, they also flipped control of both the state House of Representatives and Senate. The Republican majorities who pushed the marriage inequality amendment onto the ballots will be replaced by a new Democratic majority in each chamber. With Gov. Mark Dayton (D) a strong supporter of marriage equality and a clear popular mandate for marriage equality evident from the amendment vote, Minnesota could also potentially move on this in 2013.

3. Rhode Island: With Tuesday’s victory in Maine, Rhode Island is now the only state in New England without marriage equality. With polling showing more than 56 percent of voters in the Ocean State favor full marriage equality — instead of the state’s existing weak civil unions law — openly gay state Speaker of the House Gordon Fox (D) has promised to bring up a marriage equality bill next year.

4. Illinois: With Gov. Patrick Quinn (D) backing marriage equality and surging popular support for moving from civil unions for full marriage equality, state legislators are pondering a bill for 2013.

5. Delaware: Gov. Jack Markell (D) was re-elected with nearly 70 percent of the vote on Tuesday. He has called a move from civil unions to marriage equality “inevitable” and expects the legislature to take it up in 2013.

6. Ohio: With poll numbers showing growing support, citizens in Ohio are working to repeal the state’s 2004 marriage inequality amendment and are trying to place an amendment on the ballot in 2013 to replace it with pro-equality language.

7. New Jersey: Though Gov. Chris Christie ® vetoed a bill to move from civil unions to full marriage equality last February, the state continues to support the idea. Christie has proposed putting the idea up for a vote, though progress on this issue may depend on the 2013 New Jersey gubernatorial and legislature election results.

With the Supreme Court set to consider whether to take the Proposition 8 case in California later this month, the citizens of the nation’s most populous state could also once see marriage equality in the near future. The high court is also expected to consider a challenge to the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, which could create new protections for all same-sex couples across the country

Despite the best efforts of anti-equality groups to defeat President Obama and an array of pro-marriage equality Democrats, Tuesday’s results show that the American electorate will no longer be fooled by the gay-baiting homophobic attacks that obstructed progress on this issue for the past two decades.

[Calm]

In my own church,

Robert, for some reason I was under the impression you were LDS in background......which has led to significant confusion. Now that I've learned you are Buddhist, things are much clearer. It is great to have a variety of faiths on the board to present different viewpoints.

[Buckeye]

Got it.

So what is your response to the possibility that our leadership has misinterpreted a spiritual communication? Not just your feelings, but how are you acting upon it?

Add-on: would be interested in the response from any believing Saint as to what they do when this situation comes up for them.

Glad to discuss. FWIW, I consider myself a believing saint. From objective measures (e.g., church and temple attendance) I think others would too.

For political issues, I have to use my best judgment as a citizen. I will listen to the counsel of church leaders just like I like to the counsel of my parents, siblings, friends and others I trust. But in the end I have to judge based on personal experience and desires. I am the citizen. It is my vote to exercise. So on the issue of gay marriage, because my personal experience does not match with the church's position, I have no problem voting in favor of gay marriage.

For doctrinal issues, I do my best to follow the counsel of the church leadership absent obvious direct harm to myself or others. So while I personally do not have a testimony of the church's teaching that homosexuality is a sin, I do not speak out against the teaching. I try to recognize that my knowledge is limited, and while I do not think church leadership is infallible, I never simply assume they have made a mistake. Rather, I question, probe, pray, dialogue - I think the best scriptural term is "wrestle" - with the issue in faith that we as a people will work it out.

By the way, I think we are working this issue out. And while there is much I don't know, what I am confident of is that the atonement is more than adequate to redeem all the mistakes we, or our leaders, make.

[RobertAC]

Robert, for some reason I was under the impression you were LDS in background......which has led to significant confusion. Now that I've learned you are Buddhist, things are much clearer. It is great to have a variety of faiths on the board to present different viewpoints.

LOL!!! Thanks Calmoriah. I'm glad I do not stick out like a sore thumb here.

Edited November 7, 2012 by RobertAC

[Calm]

Glad to discuss. FWIW, I consider myself a believing saint. From objective measures (e.g., church and temple attendance) I think others would too.

For political issues, I have to use my best judgment as a citizen. I will listen to the counsel of church leaders just like I like to the counsel of my parents, siblings, friends and others I trust. But in the end I have to judge based on personal experience and desires. I am the citizen. It is my vote to exercise. So on the issue of gay marriage, because my personal experience does not match with the church's position, I have no problem voting in favor of gay marriage.

For doctrinal issues, I do my best to follow the counsel of the church leadership absent obvious direct harm to myself or others. So while I personally do not have a testimony of the church's teaching that homosexuality is a sin, I do not speak out against the teaching. I try to recognize that my knowledge is limited, and while I do not think church leadership is infallible, I never simply assume they have made a mistake. Rather, I question, probe, pray, dialogue - I think the best scriptural term is "wrestle" - with the issue in faith that we as a people will work it out.

By the way, I think we are working this issue out. And while there is much I don't know, what I am confident of is that the atonement is more than adequate to redeem all the mistakes we, or our leaders, make.

I see this type of response as practical and promoting in growth, including spiritual. I believe God allows our leaders to be fallible specifically so we will go directly to him for the answers and he allows those answers to remain dependent on our subjective experience so we are never in a position where we do not need to seek Him, whether for support or greater knowledge and light.

Thus the world will always be filled with ambiguity and what often may appear to be paradoxes.

[Calm]

LOL!!! Thanks Calmoriah. I'm glad I do not stick out like a sore thumb here.

I have been very much enjoying your posts, you write well and focus on things I tend to focus on. It was only every now and then that I would go "huh?". If you've mentioned your faith earlier, I probably didn't have a clear enough 'vision' of you constructed yet on which to attach that rather important piece of info. Can't imagine why I was so certain you were LDS that I didn't check your profile before. Usually I don't make that assumption. You must really blend in well here. . A good reminder to avoid assumptions as much as possible.

[Ahab]

This month marks the four-year anniversary of California's Prop 8, the infamous law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Its passage, with strong support from LDS Church members, led to protests in front of the LA Temple, and a backlash against many LDS who had supported it.

Now, here we are four years later. Four states voted on SSM yesterday, Main, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Three of those states voted to allow same sex marriages, the jury is still out in Washington.

As you probably heard sometime after you wrote this, it passed in my state too. I live in SW Washington and am none too happy about this turn of events.

For anyone interested in how the gay community was able to bring about this change in attitudes, this article is interesting:

How Gay Marriage Finally Won at the Polls

sneaky sneaky sneaky. Many people greatly underestimate the sneakiness of our adversary (or should I say adversaries).

So my question is this: are yesterday's results a temporary set back in the fight to defend traditional marriage, or has the dam broken leading to national (and eventually worldwide) acceptance of such unions?

We're still defending traditional marriage, and yet more and more people are accepting same sex unions.

... and it's going to keep getting worse until it gets better.

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR? In other words, if we had known that we were only buying a few years of time against acceptance for SSM, would we have done anything different in 2008?

I don't think we would have done anything different.

We'll keep teaching what we know is good, and how to know what is good, even though some people still won't accept it.

[Calm]

How Gay Marriage Finally Won at the Polls

For decades, gay advocates had framed their arguments in terms of equal rights and government benefits....

The gay rights coalition’s response was the “Why Marriage Matters” campaign. Its message was “love, commitment, family,” with no mention of rights or benefits. On the surface, it looks like any garden-variety public education campaign, a little vague, a little sappy. But this message was the result of several years and millions of dollars of research. It signaled a sea change in the way gay advocates pled their case. This was a way to invite straight people to empathize with gay people, to reassure the majority that gay people wanted the same things that they did, and to shift focus from minority rights to points of commonality. The year Why Marriage Matters rolled out, 2011, was also the year that a slew of polls first showed majority national support for same-sex marriage.

It would be nice to know which is the most accurate portrayal of the most important/meaningful value of legal recognition of marriage among the general gay population. I will be honest about my current opinion favouring the former based on the conversations I had growing up in the San Francisco area and other conversations over the years up to relatively recently where it was all about rights and benefits and the majority of those I talked to saw no appeal in living a traditional life, their major focus wasn't on acceptance either....they greatly enjoyed being viewed as rebels, nonconformists, etc., what they told me they cared about was people not telling them what to do, the removal of rules, honour codes, etc. I am not saying there weren't gays who wished for more traditional structures, just that I didn't encounter until relatively recently anyone who expressed such desires.

[Calm]

Anyone got numbers on the percentage of gays who have taken advantage of the new laws and gotten married?

[Duncan]

Anyone got numbers on the percentage of gays who have taken advantage of the new laws and gotten married?

not sure-a comedian I have seen said that in Canada you have to wait a year until you can file for divorce. So in the States there are all these gay marriages that can't get divorced down there or something so they are all coming up here to get divorced! so for at least a year you have all these upset gay people just waiting to file for a divorce!!! hahahahaha!

[Bikeemikey]

Many would look on the Crucifixion of Christ as his mission 'not working out', especially in the years immediately following his death.

Ummm... Using crucifixion as an analogy for anything seems a little bit of a stretch.

Anything can be considered a failure if you want - the more interesting observations is that anything can be considered a success also (regardless of the obvious areas of failure), as many of the comments on this thread have already shown.

Success and failure are not objective principles - they are subjective perspectives.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[pmccombs1]

So my question is this: are yesterday's results a temporary set back in the fight to defend traditional marriage, or has the dam broken leading to national (and eventually worldwide) acceptance of such unions?

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR? In other words, if we had known that we were only buying a few years of time against acceptance for SSM, would we have done anything different in 2008?

I believe it is inevitable.

In my opinion, the "traditional" family was dissolved with the advent of mature money economies starting in the early-to-mid 19th century, about when Joseph Smith was getting started in Nauvoo. This sort of family was known to the Greeks and it formed around a household economy. It was gradually then replaced with a modern construct known as the "nuclear family" which is a more abstract family based on money means. This essentially removed most activity from the home: work, education, religion, and so forth.

In a household model of family, procreation is a critical function of the economy. In the modern family, relationships are more "emotional." Same sex marriage is a result of a family unit that has been radically redefined by economic forces. While psychological and developmental arguments are still being made, other aspects have already been subsumed in the money economy, making the argument against SSM more difficult to defend. It's coming down to a matter of justice, and if families as they presently stand in America today (where they are often based simply in convenience or emotional needs) are common among heterosexuals, then denying them to homosexuals is essentially unjust.

We aren't defending the family. It's been missing for some time now. To get it back, we'd need to go home and return to our family trades and household economies. Get grandma and grandpa out of old-person warehouses. Remove kids from factory-style mass-production schooling. Get mom and dad out of their offices. Stop getting divorced when something unpleasant happens. We'd have to depend on each other and our communities for our well-being--the thing that money freed us from.

Eschewing SSM in the name of "family" gives an appearance of righteousness but prolongs the systemic evil by denying the true and fundamental healing that needs to take place, which is fundamentally economic in nature. I believe those who march about with the anti-SSM agenda are misguided and have little insight or inspiration as to the legitimate causes of family decline.

Since the sort of economy to which the family is intrinsic is now so remote, I expect that SSM is a development along the lines of natural emergent complexity that is well-matched to the sort of socioeconomic environment we now find ourselves inhabiting.

Edited November 8, 2012 by pmccombs1

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . Here was the answer (composite of both Perry's and Halstrom's responses), from memory: . . . . the Lord told us to move at that time in that place, and we obeyed. We expect that we will likely ultimately lose on this issue in the Supreme Court, so why do anything at all? Because the Lord told us to at that time in that place.

Does the Lord actually want acceptance of SSM? (this is a serious question and response)

The reason I ask is that in 2000 (or was it 2002) the Lord thru the leaders of the Church told us to support prop 22 related to SSM. If the Lord had told the Church leaders that prop 22 didn't go far enough and that we needed to pass something equivalent to prop 8, an amendment to California's constitution, the issue would have ended because at that time the amendment to the constitution would not have taken any rights away from anyone because they hadn't yet been given the right by the courts. Instead the Lord had us support prop 22 which did not ammend the constitution. Prop 22 was overturned as being unconstitutional (based on California's constitution) and gay marriage was then allowed by California's supreme court. The Lord then told us thru the Church leaders to support prop 8 which by now was taking rights away from gay people.

If we had passed prop 8 in 2000, we wouldn't have been taking away any rights and it would very likely have been upheld. Now, if it is overturned by the US supreme court, it will become the law in all 50 states. If the Church leaders are being told what to do by the Lord, then it appears the Lord wants us to accept all his children regardless of sexual orientation and allow them to participate in social institutions that will maximize their happiness.

[Ahab]

We aren't defending the family. It's been missing for some time now. To get it back, we'd need to go home and return to our family trades and household economies. Get grandma and grandpa out of old-person warehouses. Remove kids from factory-style mass-production schooling. Get mom and dad out of their offices. We'd have to rely on each other, and our communities--the thing that money freed us from.

Dude, you rock, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts. Instead of thinking the family is "missing" though maybe you could modify that thought to think it's just not all that it was meant to be. In some places there are real families where both the young and old live together spanning multi generations while working together for all that they have. Not so much in America now, but still sometimes we come kinda close with families like the Waltons. Even when fractured or separated, it's still a family.

[TAO]

The question is whether this was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice (which is a really disturbing unscriptural term, btw).

Why is it disturbing? The Abrahamic sacrifice is a type; a symbolism of Christ. Definately not disturbing. Holy, I would say.

Or what if it was meant to be an Abrahamic sacrifice for those who had long thought of marriage as only between man-and-woman, and we failed the test?

It definately could be. But until god gives me further knowledge, I will not judge such.

We Mormons, who were literally run out of the United States in large part because of our unusual sexual practices, then turn around and do something like this.

Do we demand for our values and perspectives to be taught in education centers across the country? No, in general, we do not.

I am personally not interested in polygamy or homosexuality, but with non-gender-specific Sealing power, we could be marrying straights and gays and polyamorous folks left and right;

These are the laws of the Lord. You don't change them simply because you want to.

D&C 132 is not really talking about the particular arrangement, it's talking about keeping covenants.

How do you know it's not talking about both.

If we're straight, we'll only be exalted if we keep our promises to our straight partners. Same could very well go for gay and polygamous folks.

And if we keep the commandments of the Lord. It's not simply keep promises to our partners. You have to obey every commandment to get exalted. What is one of the commandments? That we be straight.

We could be one of the most progressive churches, but instead we try to cling to a conservative respectability we never had.

We could be of the world yes, but instead we will choose to be in it, and not of it. I look for no respect or kudos for holding my position; it is simply what the Lord wants.

[TAO]

Does the Lord actually want acceptance of SSM? (this is a serious question and response)

The reason I ask is that in 2000 (or was it 2002) the Lord thru the leaders of the Church told us to support prop 22 related to SSM. If the Lord had told the Church leaders that prop 22 didn't go far enough and that we needed to pass something equivalent to prop 8, an amendment to California's constitution, the issue would have ended because at that time the amendment to the constitution would not have taken any rights away from anyone because they hadn't yet been given the right by the courts. Instead the Lord had us support prop 22 which did not ammend the constitution. Prop 22 was overturned as being unconstitutional (based on California's constitution) and gay marriage was then allowed by California's supreme court. The Lord then told us thru the Church leaders to support prop 8 which by now was taking rights away from gay people.

If we had passed prop 8 in 2000, we wouldn't have been taking away any rights and it would very likely have been upheld. Now, if it is overturned by the US supreme court, it will become the law in all 50 states. If the Church leaders are being told what to do by the Lord, then it appears the Lord wants us to accept all his children regardless of sexual orientation and allow them to participate in social institutions that will maximize their happiness.

Closet Doubter, Prop 8 didn't take away any established rights, it clarified rights which rights were implict, and which were not.

If you believe in what was quoted earlier in the thread, you will know that the Lord did and didn't want for us.

[Ahab]

... that will maximize their happiness.

It doesn't take a genius to see that same sex marriage doesn't maximize that same sex couple's happiness. To think it does is to think the ability to create their own offspring isn't required to achieve the maximum state of happiness for that couple, since same sex couples can not create their own offspring. The best they can hope for in that regard is to take care of other people's children, and that's not the maximum state of happiness for those children, either. Children are happiest when they're taken care of by their own parents who love each other, as they should.

Imagine a time when that same sex couple won't die anymore, meaning their spirit won't separate again from their mortal body because they are then resurrected. Now imagine that same sex couple continuing to live together, if God allowed that.

No matter what that same sex couple did, they wouldn't be able to produce their own offspring, ever, since same sex couples just can't do that.

Now imagine anyone who can have their own children also being resurrected and loving their own children, as they should.

Do you suppose those couples who can have their own children would ever want same sex couples to take care of them? If they did something would be wrong, because they should want to take care of their own children. That is what it takes to achieve the maximum state of happiness.

[juliann]

Everyone expected it to win... The polls showed that it would win for months. The shocking things was that is was as close as it was.

The gap narrowed toward the end but there was no polling showing it decisively ahead, probably not anything consistent even showing it ahead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8#Pre-decision_opinion_polls

I think the only ones more surprised than I was were the TV stations that wouldn't even call it until the next morning....even though there were enough votes in for it to be called that night.

[Bikeemikey]

The gap narrowed toward the end but there was no polling showing it decisively ahead, probably not anything consistent even showing it ahead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8#Pre-decision_opinion_polls

I think the only ones more surprised than I was were the TV stations that wouldn't even call it until the next morning....even though there were enough votes in for it to be called that night.

A 2 point victory is pretty much a clear victory to me.

Previous measures around the similar gay rights issues had shown about a 5 point preference for traditional marriage values in Cali.

Most people tracking the issue in the months leading up to the vote suggested those same trends would be expressed.

The huge prop-8 push (of which we were a strong part) is considered by many to have had strong negative impact on people's support for our stance.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey