Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[TAO]

The only thing that changes people's mind on this issue is getting to know gay people.

Or getting to know what God wants, right?

[Ahab]

The only thing that changes people's mind on this issue is getting to know gay people. To actual see the goodness in them and "taste of the fruit". Its the exact same with tearing down prejudice towards members of the church. Pointing to scriptures does nothing. Have a mormon family move into the neighborhood does.

The fact that "gay" people can do some good things doesn't mean that everything they do is good. Taking care of their lawn, that's a good thing. Having sexual relations with each other or someone else of the same sex isn't a good thing, though, no matter how much they may like doing it. When are people going to realize that letting people do whatever they want to do isn't necessarily a good thing. Sometimes we need to try to teach people who do bad things why the bad things they do are bad.

[DavidB]

That was good reasoning. Allowing SSM (causing a growth in SSM) will ultimately cause less traditional mairrages (because some people can do either, and there would be less of them choosing traditional mairrage).

It is terribly flawed reasoning. The greatest flaw of it assumes that a person entering a given relationship wants to be married, it next assume in any given marriage either person in marriage would have married someone else.

Might as well outlaw gay relationships while we are at it. Or even outlaw people with gay tendencies who do not enter into married sexual reproductive relationships with a member of the opposite sex.

I propose that in order to ensure heterosexuals in the LDS Church are marrying, all YSA wards institute a 6 month attendance/marriage policy, and if you are not married by your own efforts in that time period, a opposite sex mate will be chosen for you by your Bishop.

Edited November 9, 2012 by DavidB

[Ahab]

It is terribly flawed reasoning. The greatest flaw of it assumes that a person entering a given relationship wants to be married,

... I wasn't assuming people who get married want to be married. They are getting married, though, and that is the outcome of doing whatever is involved in what it takes to get married. Try to avoid assuming things, why don't cha. I was simply stating a simple fact of the matter.

... it next assume in any given marriage either person in marriage would have married someone else.

What? Where are you coming up with that idea? The only clear case that can be made is that people who get married are doing whatever it takes to get married and they're marrying whoever they are marrying.

It sounds more and more like you don't even know what "marriage" is all about.

Might as well outlaw gay relationships while we are at it. Or even outlaw people with gay tendencies who do not enter into married sexual reproductive relationships with a member of the opposite sex.

I propose that in order to ensure heterosexuals in the LDS Church are marrying, all YSA wards institute a 6 month attendance and if you are not married by your own efforts in that time period, a opposite sex mate will be chosen for you by your Bishop.

You've gone off the deep end now, bud. Try reading what I'm writing instead of using your imagination to assume I'm saying things I'm not saying.

[JAHS]

This has probably already been said but besides the explanation that God told them to do it at that moment the church's position and involvement in Prop 8 allowed us to tell the world what we stand for even though ssm may eventually be allowed everywhere. We were letting our light shine so to speak:

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matt 5:16)

After we made our statement on the subject there is no longer a need to put more money or effort into it.

[wenglund]

Keep hunting your great white whale captain, you missed it with this one.

Many of us on this thread agree with the following: Let churches that want to marry homo or hetro sexual couples (or groups for that matter) do it. That is their religious freedom. It is not however automatically a right for such a marriage to be legally recognized. In my opinion those who are not comfortable with this don't understand the principles of religious freedom.

However, the legally recognized is important as it provides certain societal advantages (tax for example). The legally recognized portion, as has been very well articulated by many posters (Wade Englund for example) incentivizes certain things within society. Some claim this incentive process makes society better.

I think it is time to remove marriage as a legislative tool to reward and incentive. Marriage is an institution, not an outcome. If you want to incentivize outcomes then do it, marriage is not an outcome.

We can incentivize behavior and outcomes better than with marriage. Offer lower tax burdens for relationships with kids. We can have a decreasing tax scale as couples stay together longer. Allow tax relief when kids go to college. Lets have the govt. tax parents based on kids GPA's. Let's have family tax increases if a kids commits crime. If you want society to be a certain way then marriage is to indirect of a tool to get you there, you need more specific incentives.

The incentives we need can be more effective without marriage being involved.

Of course if you want a healthier, more educated population with lower crime and longer term committed relationships you could just move to New Zealand, Australia, or Northern Europe where all those things exist and marriage is at a much lower rate than in the US.

These indicators are high in these countries because the govt. legislate and incentivize them directly, not indirectly via marriage.

This is actually an excellent question that I haven't considered, and it deserves more in-depth thought than I have time at the moment to give it. You are essentially asking is whether or not there may be better ways than legal marriage to incentivize certain desired results?

At first glance, though, there are three points that come immediately to mind that tend to predispose me to think there isn't a better way.

First, is the question of feasibility in going with possible alternatives even were they to be determined to be better. After all, we already have a large body of marital laws that have become solidly entrenched not only in our legal system but also in our culture. One has to factor in the cost of making the switch to allegedly better alternatives assuming that is even possible. Within democracies, it is often quite difficult to un-ring a government bell, even bells that don't ring very true.

Second, if one of the desired results is marriage (as opposed to people just living together or bound together contractually as with domestic partnerships), then legal marriage may be self-evident as the best alternative, if not the only alternative.

Third, there is some wisdom in being very cautious and reticent to experiment governmentally with the fundamental institution of society, and it behoves us to take into serious consideration the potential sizable negative impact that governmental actions may have culturally on that fundamental institution.

Whatever the case, you have given us some things to think about. However, I am not sure how happy the gay community might be at the prospect of after working so hard to gain legalized marriage only to have it vanish and be replaced with alternatives they may have had for some time but found unsatisfactory. This may rob them of the ultimate governmental seal of approval for their sexual behaviors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

This is actually an excellent question that I haven't considered, and it deserves more in-depth thought than I have time at the moment to give it. You are essentially asking is whether or not there may be better ways than legal marriage to incentivize certain desired results?

At first glance, though, there are three points that come immediately to mind that tend to predispose me to think there isn't a better way.

First, is the question of feasibility in going with possible alternatives even were they to be determined to be better. After all, we already have a large body of marital laws that have become solidly entrenched not only in our legal system but also in our culture. One has to factor in the cost of making the switch to allegedly better alternatives assuming that is even possible. Within democracies, it is often quite difficult to un-ring a government bell, even bells that don't ring very true.

Second, if one of the desired results is marriage (as opposed to people just living together or bound together contractually as with domestic partnerships), then legal marriage may be self-evident as the best alternative, if not the only alternative.

Third, there is some wisdom in being very cautious and reticent to experiment governmentally with the fundamental institution of society, and it behoves us to take into serious consideration the potential sizable negative impact that governmental actions may have culturally on that fundamental institution.

Whatever the case, you have given us some things to think about. However, I am not sure how happy the gay community might be at the prospect of after working so hard to gain legalized marriage only to have it vanish and be replaced with alternatives they may have had for some time but found unsatisfactory. This may rob them of the ultimate governmental seal of approval for their sexual behaviors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me know your thoughts as you consider the subject... I am still on the fence about the whole thing, though my tendency is to think that marriage now needs to play a larger role as a religious institution and take a back seat as a tool of govt. incentive.

I would simply say, if we are going to accept that marriage is a legitimate tool of govt. to incentivize certain behaviors because these behaviors produce better societal outcomes, and that these incentives must be restricted to those who can produce these outcomes, then we should be having a debate about what these outcomes are, why they make society better, and whether or not there may be other (better) tools of realizing the same result.

To me there is a obvious religious right to marriage. This is a fact. This not, however, the same as the right to preferential treatment by the govt. The govt does have the right to incentivize and preference, such govt. action is discrimination, but it is also acceptable.

However, given that this is the govt making the decisions, my preference is always that such preferential practices are as clear, transparent and effective as possible. Ideally such instances should be for clearly essential focused on important needs and goals, and should always be as limited as possible.

Given that the US incentive system is currently advantaging useless marriages (that produce terribly costly and negative impacts on broader society) to the same degree that it is advantaging high functioning marriages (that produce a better society with less social ill) is an obvious case of gross govt. inefficiency.

Moreover, there really is no clear statement from the govt. as to why they are doing this, no clear goal or objective other than marriage itself is the desired result (Wade's second point). I don't think marriage as the goal is acceptable when countries that have much lower rates of marriage are showing to have less of social ills than the US; ills that would likely be the social concerns that incentivizing marriage is meant to resolve.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[TAO]

It is terribly flawed reasoning. The greatest flaw of it assumes that a person entering a given relationship wants to be married, it next assume in any given marriage either person in marriage would have married someone else.

But the fact is that if gay mairrage did not exist, there WOULD be some who would get in a heterosexual mairrage. So doesn't that mean there'd be more heterosexual mairrages if homosexual mairrage was outlawed?

It's like comparing products, actually. Two competing products, if you eliminate the one, the other gets more demand.

Might as well outlaw gay relationships while we are at it. Or even outlaw people with gay tendencies who do not enter into married sexual reproductive relationships with a member of the opposite sex.

David... this wasn't even the point of my post. My point was that his logic was okay; homosexual mairrages WILL lead to a decline in heterosexual mairrages just as competing products lead to a lower demand for the original.

I propose that in order to ensure heterosexuals in the LDS Church are marrying, all YSA wards institute a 6 month attendance/marriage policy, and if you are not married by your own efforts in that time period, a opposite sex mate will be chosen for you by your Bishop.

Now you are getting ridiculous.

Edited November 9, 2012 by TAO

[Bikeemikey]

But the fact is that if gay mairrage did not exist, there WOULD be some who would get in a heterosexual mairrage. So doesn't that mean there'd be more heterosexual mairrages if homosexual mairrage was outlawed?

It's like comparing products, actually. Two competing products, if you eliminate the one, the other gets more demand.

David... this wasn't even the point of my post. My point was that his logic was okay; homosexual mairrages WILL lead to a decline in heterosexual mairrages just as competing products lead to a lower demand for the original.

Now you are getting ridiculous.

Tao, the logic is correct but not from a casual chain, it is only a correlation.

1) Societal acceptance of homosexuality will result in more homosexuals deciding to embrace their sexual inclination, rather than resist it.

2) As such, some homosexual individuals will be less likely to enter into a heterosexual relationship as an attempt to resist/change/hide their sexual orientation.

3) As a result we can assume there will be less homosexuals marrying into hetro-sexual partnerships.

4) Therefore, the total number of "hetero-sexual" marriages will decrease. (Someone else can run the numbers and determine by what margin, we will be talking about a small number of homosexuals which is a small portion of the broader community.)

5) Societal acceptance of homosexuality may also result in the right of homosexuals to marry.

6) As a result, some homosexuals will decide to enter into homo-sexual marriages.

7) As a result we will observe a decline in hetro-sexual marriages while we see an increase in homosexual marriages.

It would not however be reasonable to propose that legitimizing homosexual marriages will lead to a decline in hetro-sexual marriages. Increased societal acceptance of homosexuality will result in less homosexuals "passing" as heterosexual, therefore a decline in homosexuals engaging in "heterosexual marriage".

Heterosexual marriage will decline as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, regardless of the ability for homosexuals to marry.

As an aside, I was not aware that God spent his time counting heterosexual marriages, is there some critical mass of such marriages that allows Jesus to win a wager with Satan, is this what they do instead of poker?

Look around the world. Marriage is now an indicator of absolutely nothing. Countries with much lower marriage rates than the US out perform us all over the map. We are not going to make the country better by having more people marry.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[rongo]

I find this suggestion incredibly insulting. Perhaps it is precisely because we have received our own personal revelation that we support SSM initiatives.

Perhaps. I notice that you (and others who disagree with me whom I have had frank personal discussions about this with), after the feigned offense and outrage, did not answer the question --- amidst all the kicking tables and chairs over, the question was notably *not* answered.

There is a simple reason for this. While personal revelation is often a "firewall" in the Church (who is anybody to say what you or I have/have not received?), in this case it's sort of a Jesus/Pharisees-Saduccees question. If you answer that yes, you prayed about it and God revealed to you that His will is the exact opposite of what the united voice of our 15 prophets, seers, and revelators uniformly acted on ----- well, that is going to gain exactly *zero* traction among the committed Church members. The ones you and others want to get to "come around" on this. If you answer that no, you did not actually pray about it and receive revelation from God ---- well, that doesn't help you at all in a discussion with committed Mormons whom you are trying to get to "come around" on this.

We have always been counseled to go and seek our own answers. Did the Lord promise that we would all receive the same answer? Not that I recall.

I agree. But there's that question again ----- Did you (and others) inquire of God and receive an answer from Him on this? I would never mock or belittle someone who testified that he had ---- but in my extensive conversations as an apologist and a bishop with people about this, I have *never* had anyone who resisted the Church's stance claim that he had. Those who don't support the Church's stance tend (in my experience) to actually belittle this in committed members, and find invoking revelation as an argument in favor of SSM to be distasteful.

I respect the fact that personal revelation has led you to your decisions regarding SSM. Please have the courtesy to allow others the same privilege.

This has nothing to do with my or your relative "respect" or lack of it for personal revelation. If a member claims personal revelation that is diametrically opposed to the united action of all 15 P, S, & Rs, that member is on his own. He can complain about lack of respect for his claim to revelation all he wants, but it isn't going to win over those members who "follow the prophet."

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps. I notice that you (and others who disagree with me whom I have had frank personal discussions about this with), after the feigned offense and outrage, did not answer the question --- amidst all the kicking tables and chairs over, the question was notably *not* answered.

There is a simple reason for this. While personal revelation is often a "firewall" in the Church (who is anybody to say what you or I have/have not received?), in this case it's sort of a Jesus/Pharisees-Saduccees question. If you answer that yes, you prayed about it and God revealed to you that His will is the exact opposite of what the united voice of our 15 prophets, seers, and revelators uniformly acted on ----- well, that is going to gain exactly *zero* traction among the committed Church members. The ones you and others want to get to "come around" on this. If you answer that no, you did not actually pray about it and receive revelation from God ---- well, that doesn't help you at all in a discussion with committed Mormons whom you are trying to get to "come around" on this.

I agree. But there's that question again ----- Did you (and others) inquire of God and receive an answer from Him on this? I would never mock or belittle someone who testified that he had ---- but in my extensive conversations as an apologist and a bishop with people about this, I have *never* had anyone who resisted the Church's stance claim that he had. Those who don't support the Church's stance tend (in my experience) to actually belittle this in committed members, and find invoking revelation as an argument in favor of SSM to be distasteful.

This has nothing to do with my or your relative "respect" or lack of it for personal revelation. If a member claims personal revelation that is diametrically opposed to the united action of all 15 P, S, & Rs, that member is on his own. He can complain about lack of respect for his claim to revelation all he wants, but it isn't going to win over those members who "follow the prophet."

I have prayed on pondered on the subject extensively and repeatedly received experiences that show prop 8 was not appropriate, FOR ME.

We can only ever receive revelation for ourselves, not the church. It is entirely possible that the churches involvement in prop 8 was an inspired decision and that my decision to be against prop 8 is also inspired. I see no conflict. The prophet/s (15 as you like to say) receive revelation for guiding the institution. They don't receive specific revelation for each and every specific member of the church.

As a result, I support the churches right and decision to involve themselves the way they did. I also have a clear conscience that I am just peachy with god as i voice opposition to their involvement. Can we both be inspired by revelation from God. Yes!!!

[rongo]

I have prayed on pondered on the subject extensively and repeatedly received experiences that show prop 8 was not appropriate, FOR ME.

We can only ever receive revelation for ourselves, not the church. It is entirely possible that the churches involvement in prop 8 was an inspired decision and that my decision to be against prop 8 is also inspired. I see no conflict. The prophet/s (15 as you like to say) receive revelation for guiding the institution. They don't receive specific revelation for each and every specific member of the church.

As a result, I support the churches right and decision to involve themselves the way they did. I also have a clear conscience that I am just peachy with god as i voice opposition to their involvement. Can we both be inspired by revelation from God. Yes!!!

Can't say fairer than that. You are the first one I've ever heard to actually come out and invoke personal revelation.

Try not to get too frustrated with the main body of the Church if there isn't very much "coming around" as you "voice opposition to [the FP and Q12's] involvement."

[TAO]

Tao, the logic is correct but not from a casual chain, it is only a correlation.

Eh... kinda. His statement was that it would lead to a decline in mairrages, right? That'd be correct. As to the implication, which is what I think you are getting at, that's a bit more skeptical... I still think he could provide evidence, but he's going to have to go into more detail.

It would not however be reasonable to propose that legitimizing homosexual marriages will lead to a decline in hetro-sexual marriages. Increased societal acceptance of homosexuality will result in less homosexuals "passing" as heterosexual, therefore a decline in homosexuals engaging in "heterosexual marriage".

I think this was Ahab's point... that ther will be less 'heterosexual mairrages' (also consider the case of bisexuals). But he was implying things further, and that's what needs a bit more backing.

Heterosexual marriage will decline as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, regardless of the ability for homosexuals to marry.

That is true, yes.

As an aside, I was not aware that God spent his time counting heterosexual marriages, is there some critical mass of such marriages that allows Jesus to win a wager with Satan, is this what they do instead of poker?

Lol.

Look around the world. Marriage is now an indicator of absolutely nothing. Countries with much lower marriage rates than the US out perform us all over the map. We are not going to make the country better by having more people marry.

Possibly. But look at mairrages within the church for a second. Now look at how Utah performs on the map. Quite well indeed.

[Hamilton Porter]

I think that SSM will be legal but I have my doubts that homosexuality will ever be accepted in society

How old are you?

[Duncan]

How old are you?

34, but if you ask the clerks at the various shops I frequent I am 17

[Bikeemikey]

Can't say fairer than that. You are the first one I've ever heard to actually come out and invoke personal revelation.

Try not to get too frustrated with the main body of the Church if there isn't very much "coming around" as you "voice opposition to [the FP and Q12's] involvement."

This is in all seriousness: I don't live in California so perhaps the revelation is geographic specific. I was working there a lot during prop 8 though.

[Bikeemikey]

Possibly. But look at mairrages within the church for a second. Now look at how Utah performs on the map. Quite well indeed.

I agree with this... and Govt. ought to incentivize these outcomes and objectives... I am just saying marriage as a blanket tool to do this is not working effectively when compared to other tools used in other countries around the world.

I say abandon the marriage ship as a tool of govt. incentive and let it develop purely as an important religious covenant.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[TAO]

I agree with this... and Govt. ought to incentivize these outcomes and objectives... I am just saying marriage as a blanket tool to do this is not working effectively when compared to other tools used in other countries around the world.

I say abandon the marriage ship as a tool of govt. incentive and let it develop purely as an important religious covenant.

Well that's up to you. I do worry this might make marriage even more minimalized though... especially with the secular ways things are going =/.

Edited November 9, 2012 by TAO

[california boy]

Honest people can and have made a reasonable causal case for the decline in marriages due to the mangling and diluting of the definition of marriage through the emotive and insipid arguments for and eventual legalization of SSM. Indeed, common sense would suggest that, since the word "marriage" was legally defined and employed so as to encourage its legal application, then the mangling and diluting of that word may very well have had a chilling affect on its legal application. In other words, by diminishing the meaningfulness, significance, and value associated with the word "marriage," one might reasonably expect less people would care about it and get married. This causal affect was evinced when the notion of "marriage" was first under attack during the "free love sexual revolution," when large numbers of people stopped getting married and started living together (interestingly enough, in the early stages of the gay movement, leading advocates for that cause came out strongly against marriage and the movement, itself, factored heavily into the sexual revolution), and has since manifest itself with the onset of domestic partnerships and SSM, Honest people would reasonably acknowledge this and thoughtfully take it into consideration.

I have known a number of homosexuals over the years. Some of them have, on balance, been good and decent people, and others have been not so good (like the older homosexuals that illegally propositioned me on several occasions in my youth, and the older homosexual that raped a friend of mine in his youth, leading later to his suicidal tendencies). I am also familiar with various social statistics that are less than flattering of homosexuals. However, what affected my mind wasn't emotions based on whether my experience with homosexuals was positive or negative, but rather a balanced mix of emotions and reason in figuring what will work best for everyone, individually and collectively, both temporally and spiritually. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That was good reasoning. Allowing SSM (causing a growth in SSM) will ultimately cause less traditional mairrages (because some people can do either, and there would be less of them choosing traditional mairrage).

By far, the biggest reason why this country is moving so quickly and strongly towards the acceptance of gay marriage is because there seems to be no good argument against its acceptance. Making a statement like ssm is causing or will cause less heterosexual marriages is just unfounded. While there are countries that allow ssm whose overall marriage rate is declining, there are also plenty of countries where ssm is not yet legal, yet their marriage rates are also declining. No one has ever shown a relationship between legalization of ssm and the decline heterosexuals choosing to marry. Most objective people have identified the change in economics as being the number one reason for the decline of heterosexual marriages. When the woman can support herself, she is less likely to jump into a marriage relationship. That statistic is consistent all over the world. Countries where women do not have economic independence consistently have a higher rate of marriage. So if you want to turn back time where more heterosexuals got married, you should be passing laws preventing women from working. Good luck with that.

I have yet to meet a heterosexual couple that has said, we would get married, but now that gays can marry what is the point? Anyone who chooses not to get married because someone else is allowed to marry should not be marrying anyway. When interracial couples were allowed to legally marry, did people say "Now that interracial couples can marry, I am not going to? This whole house of cards just doesn't stand up to logic or fact.

The only way to prove your premise is if a survey was done asking unmarried couples why they choose to not get married. Those that cling to this false premise might be interested in this article.

A stronger argument can be made that preventing gay couples from marrying is actually causing LESS heterosexual couples from choosing to marry. From the article:

Why do some couples opt for long-term companionship instead of legal marriage, like movie actors Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, who have been together since 1982?

Alison Hatch, 30, a part-time instructor and doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Daniel Welch, 31, an elementary school teacher, cite reasons both social and political.

"We are philosophically opposed to marriage for a few reasons, but mostly because we do not feel as though we can in good conscience enter into an institution that actively discriminates against gay and lesbian couples," says Hatch, who has lived with Welch for four years. "It is our belief that it is inherently discriminatory to grant social benefits to some couples and exclude others."

Actor Brad Pitt told Esquire magazine in October 2006 that he and actress Angelina Jolie -- with whom he is raising four children -- have declined to consider marriage until same-sex couples have the right to wed.

Partners choose not to marry for other reasons. Hatch, whose dissertation examined 48 committed heterosexual couples choosing to not pursue legal marriage, has spoken to people who feel marriage is a patriarchal institution. Some are against the intertwining of church and state in marriage. There also are emotional reasons why committed couples choose to stay unwed.

When churches say that it is better gays live together and don't get married, what kind of message does that send about the importance of couples to marry. The younger generation sees little difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples. It is easy for them to make the assumption that marriage is optional and not important since the church discourages gay couples from entering into marriage.

When people send the message that marriage is ordained by God as a reason to object to ssm, then it send the message to young couples that if you are not religious, then marriage is not that important. This is supported by this article

As Litzberg says, “We don’t feel that we need to. We are not religious people and we surround ourselves with friends and family who often share our beliefs. We do not feel alone in our choice. To get married is not so much about religion, or money, or security as it may be for people in other countries.

The bottom line is that there has been absolutely no proven relationship between ssm and couples choosing to not marry. Those that use this argument really have no supported argument at all. Hence, the further march towards equal rights for gays in this country.

[california boy]

Perhaps. I notice that you (and others who disagree with me whom I have had frank personal discussions about this with), after the feigned offense and outrage, did not answer the question --- amidst all the kicking tables and chairs over, the question was notably *not* answered.

There is a simple reason for this. While personal revelation is often a "firewall" in the Church (who is anybody to say what you or I have/have not received?), in this case it's sort of a Jesus/Pharisees-Saduccees question. If you answer that yes, you prayed about it and God revealed to you that His will is the exact opposite of what the united voice of our 15 prophets, seers, and revelators uniformly acted on ----- well, that is going to gain exactly *zero* traction among the committed Church members. The ones you and others want to get to "come around" on this. If you answer that no, you did not actually pray about it and receive revelation from God ---- well, that doesn't help you at all in a discussion with committed Mormons whom you are trying to get to "come around" on this.

I agree. But there's that question again ----- Did you (and others) inquire of God and receive an answer from Him on this? I would never mock or belittle someone who testified that he had ---- but in my extensive conversations as an apologist and a bishop with people about this, I have *never* had anyone who resisted the Church's stance claim that he had. Those who don't support the Church's stance tend (in my experience) to actually belittle this in committed members, and find invoking revelation as an argument in favor of SSM to be distasteful.

This has nothing to do with my or your relative "respect" or lack of it for personal revelation. If a member claims personal revelation that is diametrically opposed to the united action of all 15 P, S, & Rs, that member is on his own. He can complain about lack of respect for his claim to revelation all he wants, but it isn't going to win over those members who "follow the prophet."

While the "15" came out supporting prop 8, none have ever claimed a revelation from God. There is a big difference between a revelation from God and the brotheren agreeing on a course of action. One is doctrine, the other is policy. There are many policies that the church has undertaken that have gone by the wayside. The truth is there has never been a revelation about same sex marriage. Until there is, it is just church policy. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

[Storm Rider]

While the "15" came out supporting prop 8, none have ever claimed a revelation from God. There is a big difference between a revelation from God and the brotheren agreeing on a course of action. One is doctrine, the other is policy. There are many policies that the church has undertaken that have gone by the wayside. The truth is there has never been a revelation about same sex marriage. Until there is, it is just church policy. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

It seems clear from scripture - revelation - that homosexual activity is not acceptable and is sin. Whether one acknowledges it is sin is irrelevant. God has already spoken on the matter and denying it and demanding another revelation is a sign of a hardened heart and stiff-neckedness. It is revelation and it is sin.

[Calm]

Well that's up to you. I do worry this might make marriage even more minimalized though... especially with the secular ways things are going =/.

I would think it depends on how it was handled. A certain way would minimise it...the government representing that they didn't care about, it had no real meaning for them so why bother or approach in a way to increase respect representing that they felt it was of such personal importance to those involved that the government did best to keep its hands off of it to avoid having people who didn't feel the same sort of emotional and intellectual investment in a particular relationship in order to allow an overall sense of closeness, etc among those involved.

Think of it along the lines of contrasting having a birth at a home with a midwife or having it at a hospital. While it can be a wonderful experience in the latter case, for many it is distracting and lessens the emotional intensity of the experience, for some it is even intrusive. If the government represents that it is getting out of the marriage business to help remove distracting and intrusive elements from an important personal and social event, that demonstrates respect and would not trivialize marriage IMO.

Edited November 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[california boy]

It seems clear from scripture - revelation - that homosexual activity is not acceptable and is sin. Whether one acknowledges it is sin is irrelevant. God has already spoken on the matter and denying it and demanding another revelation is a sign of a hardened heart and stiff-neckedness. It is revelation and it is sin.

What seems clear from scripture? There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures about SSM. What is in the scriptures is that homosexuality is wrong. But so is any sex outside of marriage. The law of chastity is clear. Sex outside of marriage whether it be gay or straight is an abomination to God. Do you realize that there are tons more verses that condemn straight sex in the Bible then there are gay sex. If you can find anywhere in scripture that says that homosexuality within the bounds of marriage is wrong, please post it. Otherwise, God has not revealed to man his feelings on this subject.

It is interesting to me that Christ himself walked upon this very earth and taught what He felt was important for us to understand. There were no prophets to filter and understand God's will. It was just His words. He said nothing on this subject. Can you really make a case that homosexuality is important to God? In absence of any revelation on this subject, can you really make the case that God does not want homosexuals to marry? I think I could make a much stronger case that God wants everyone to marry.

It is interesting to me that some people take the words of Paul for example, as being revelation from God. But the fact is, Paul is just writing a letter to various branches of the church. Does he say anywhere that every word in the letter God told him to write? If an apostle writes a letter today, do we assume every word comes directly from God? The reason why the letters of Paul are found in the scriptures is because some Catholics long ago decided to put those letters there. And as you know, there are plenty of ideas taught in the Bible and by Paul that at one time people thought were doctrine that now is not viewed as anything other than his own personal beliefs.

[Kemara]

What seems clear from scripture? There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures about SSM…. If you can find anywhere in scripture that says that homosexuality within the bounds of marriage is wrong, please post it. Otherwise, God has not revealed to man his feelings on this subject.

While Christ may not have explicitly discussed anything about homosexual “marriage”, He did discuss Marriage and He made His views on what constituted a God sanctioned Marriage very clear. Christ discussed Marriage exclusively in terms of male and female. Homosexual “marriage” is conspicuous by its absence from Christ’s discussion of Marriage as is any and all other possible forms of "marriage" that can be imagined up in the minds of human beings. That much is clear from the scriptures and that much has been revealed to man by God.

While homosexual “marriage” is not explicitly condemned by the scriptures, neither is any other form of "marriage", no matter how perverse or abominable. Once you open the door to the position that because Christ never explicitly discussed it, then on the basis of consistency of reason, you must allow for every other possible form and variation of marriage. I do not want to start describing all the possible forms of abomination and perversion that could be touted as a "marriage", but if you want to support and believe that Christ sanctions homosexual "marriage" on the terms of no explicit condemnation, then you must support and believe Christ sanctions every other possible form. Do you support all forms of "marriage" on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual "marriage" with?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Kemara

[Bikeemikey]

While Christ may not have explicitly discussed anything about homosexual “marriage”, He did discuss Marriage and He made His views on what constituted a God sanctioned Marriage very clear. Christ discussed Marriage exclusively in terms of male and female. Homosexual “marriage” is conspicuous by its absence from Christ’s discussion of Marriage as is any and all other possible forms of "marriage" that can be imagined up in the minds of human beings. That much is clear from the scriptures and that much has been revealed to man by God.

While homosexual “marriage” is not explicitly condemned by the scriptures, neither is any other form of "marriage", no matter how perverse or abominable. Once you open the door to the position that because Christ never explicitly discussed it, then on the basis of consistency of reason, you must allow for every other possible form and variation of marriage. I do not want to start naming all the possible forms of abomination and perversion that could be touted as a "marriage", but if you want to support and believe that Christ sanctions homosexual "marriage" on the terms of no explicit condemnation, then you must support and believe Christ sanctions every other possible form. Do you support all forms of "marriage" on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual "marriage" with?

The whole issue of gods perspective is a red herring. That only matters inside religion. Some religions disagree that god cares at all about homosexuality, some even claim Christ was gay.

Obviously for almost all Mormons homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery and sex of any kind out of wedlock. In fact, there is an enormous list of sins.

That is our religious right to think that way, just as it is the right o other religious groups to disagree if the choose.

This debate is about whether govt. should offer preferential treatment to homosexuals who marry in a like manner to what they currently offer heterosexuals. It is about effective govt. not god.

I think that the govt. should stop using marriage as a reason to preference citizens, This is separate to my beliefs about marriage as a religious institution.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey