What If The Church Had Issued The Following Pre-Prop 8 Vote?

[go_utes01]

This is a popular libertarian argument. But it undermines marriages and sound family structures. Government has a legitimate interest in the core unit of society.

You hold the government in much higher regard than I. I do not trust the government to regulate the family - it has shown over and over again that it gets it wrong - why keep trusting?

[CASteinman]

You hold the government in much higher regard than I.

Yes I do. It is sort of a command to have governments and to seek for them to enact righteous laws. In a sense, Governments are ordained of God.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[go_utes01]

Yes I do. It is sort of a command to have governments and to seek for them to enact righteous laws. In a sense, Governments are ordained of God.

I believe more in self-governing. A kind of teach them correct principles sort of approach. Allowing the learned elite decide what is and isn't best for society has proven to be ineffective.

Edited April 18, 2013 by go_utes01

[Bikeemikey]

You realize allowing the government to regulate homosexual as well as heterosexual marriage does not decrease the size of government, right? As one that is wary of big government, I am against the government playing any role in defining, regulating, permitting, and/or validating any of my personal relationships. As long as there is no abuse, consenting adults should be allowed to form whatever relationships they choose and regulate those relationships via contract (the government would play its familiar and legitimate role of enforcing those contracts), and allow communities/religions perform whatever ceremonies they want.

It is a matter of scope... My concern with govt is not specifically physical size, it is more concerned with the scope of govt.

That is one of my concerns with some of the current rhetoric that only talks about govt size in terms of number of bodies and amount of spending...

The hypothetical letter in the opening post specifically requested the govt stop engaging in the sanction of any relationship at all.

Mike

[go_utes01]

It is a matter of scope... My concern with govt is not specifically physical size, it is more concerned with the scope of govt.

That is one of my concerns with some of the current rhetoric that only talks about govt size in terms of number of bodies and amount of spending...

The hypothetical letter in the opening post specifically requested the govt stop engaging in the sanction of any relationship at all.

Mike

When I speak of big government, I am concerned with both the absolute physical size/cost and its scope and influence. If we can narrow the scope, the size will become more manageable, and if we are able to decrease the size, the scope will come more into focus. I believe we can work both directions to try and shrink government influence/intrusion in our lives.

[omni]

Bikeymikey, I would have loved to have seen something along these lines. It would have allowed the church to affirm its stance that marriage is between a man and a woman while recognizing the secular and legal rights of others who dont believe as we do. We also don't support fornication and a long list of other values that may set us apart, but I don't see a big push by the church to outlaw them. The church has a huge image problem right now and Prop 8 significantly worsened it. Whether we like to admit it or not, for a missionary church such as ours, image is very important in bring new converts to the gospel.

[go_utes01]

Bikeymikey, I would have loved to have seen something along these lines. It would have allowed the church to affirm its stance that marriage is between a man and a woman while recognizing the secular and legal rights of others who dont believe as we do. We also don't support fornication and a long list of other values that may set us apart, but I don't see a big push by the church to outlaw them. The church has a huge image problem right now and Prop 8 significantly worsened it. Whether we like to admit it or not, for a missionary church such as ours, image is very important in bring new converts to the gospel.

And here I was thinking it was the spirit that brought in new converts to the gospel.

[CASteinman]

Allowing the learned elite decide what is and isn't best for society has proven to be ineffective.

I believe you would strain very hard to make any sort of case for that at all. It has been effective. It may not be desirable along some dimensions or aspects of evaluation of governance, but it has been effective through most of the history of man.

Plus, it is how God has dealt with His Children from time to time and so it has the imprimatur of His Approval.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

When I speak of big government, I am concerned with both the absolute physical size/cost and its scope and influence. If we can narrow the scope, the size will become more manageable, and if we are able to decrease the size, the scope will come more into focus. I believe we can work both directions to try and shrink government influence/intrusion in our lives.

Anarchy would bring it right to zero. Which is definitely minimal.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[go_utes01]

I believe you would strain very hard to make any sort of case for that at all. It has been effective. It may not be desirable along some dimensions or aspects of evaluation of governance, but it has been effective through most of the history of man.

Plus, it is how God has dealt with His Children from time to time and so it has the imprimatur of His Approval.

Show me the counterfactual. Just because there have always been coercive governments and there has been advancements, does not mean that there would not have been greater advancements without government interference. The more centrally planned a government or economy is/has been, the less effective at bringing advancements and greater quality of life to the people trapped inside.

[go_utes01]

Anarchy would bring it right to zero. Which is definitely minimal.

Yep. Lack of monopoly on force does not necessarily lead to chaos.

[CASteinman]

Yep. Lack of monopoly on force does not necessarily lead to chaos.

Again, you would strain very hard to demonstrate this from history.

And it is contrary to the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, including perhaps, some revelations.

[CASteinman]

Show me the counterfactual.

Seriously? You want me to show you the entire history of government among men?

Just because there have always been coercive governments and there has been advancements, does not mean that there would not have been greater advancements without government interference.

Yes, it does not mean that, but it does not mean the opposite of that either. You are speculating. There is no history to support your view and there can't be.

The more centrally planned a government or economy is/has been, the less effective at bringing advancements and greater quality of life to the people trapped inside.

That actually cannot be proven or demonstrated. But it is also sort of a red herring. We are not talking about central planning of economy. We are talking about Government having the reasonable ability to regulate marriage.

[wenglund]

The proposed letter may serve to endear the Church to contemporary pop culture, but it entails several fundamental misunderstandings of the issue--particularly the purpose behind marital laws and the rights associated therewith. And, it unwittingly puts at risk the very thing it wishes to protect.

So, in our upside-down world, the letter fits perfect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It doesn't increase it either. It is a non-factor.

This may be true for California and a few other states, where the respective governments already regulate and adjudicate homosexual relationship prior to Prop 8, and this by way of domestic partnerships and civil unions. For these states, governmental expansion had already taken place.

However, in states where there aren't domestic partnerships or civil unions, there would unavoidably be an expansion of government.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2013 by wenglund

[CASteinman]

This may be true for California and a few other states, where the respective governments already regulate and adjudicate homosexual relationship prior to Prop 8, and this by way of domestic partnerships and civil unions. For these states, governmental expansion had already taken place.

However, in states where there aren't domestic partnerships or civil unions, there would unavoidably be an expansion of government.

I was thinking about how mere regulation of marriage to include homosexual couplings would not expand government. I was not including the consequential fallout.

[Bikeemikey]

And here I was thinking it was the spirit that brought in new converts to the gospel.

It does... but people have to be willing to open their doors and listen first.

[Bikeemikey]

I believe you would strain very hard to make any sort of case for that at all. It has been effective. It may not be desirable along some dimensions or aspects of evaluation of governance, but it has been effective through most of the history of man.

Plus, it is how God has dealt with His Children from time to time and so it has the imprimatur of His Approval.

So why bother with the US revolution?

Democracy was a protest against the failure of the elite ruling class.

It ended up producing a larger, more expanded ruling class, but society improves as the class of people involved in governing expands and becomes more representative.

That is why nations under the rule of representative democracy seem to be performing better.

[Bernard Gui]

So Joseph Smith was hearing wrong when he heard Adam and Eve and Eliza? And of course the Jewish folklorists were wrong when they went Adam and Lilith oops Eve? Am so confused by all this black and white semantics...can I be transported back to the 1950's where all we were concerned about was killing Communists and making money.

I was around in the 50's and 60's. You are misinformed.

[CASteinman]

So why bother with the US revolution?

So a different group could do it.

Democracy was a protest against the failure of the elite ruling class.

No. It was not a protest against failures. It was a sign of a failure to maintain control and relationships and it created a new form of ruling by an elite class.

It ended up producing a larger, more expanded ruling class, but society improves as the class of people involved in governing expands and becomes more representative.

I am not actually someone who believes that it is in the best interests for everyone to have a say. But it is our theoretical standard. The truth is, that we still have a sort of ruling elite. Which does not trouble me if they will judge righteous judgment.

That is why nations under the rule of representative democracy seem to be performing better.

Depends upon your "measure" of performing "better". In Multi-Attribute Decision Theory these are called "MOP"'s, or "Measures of Performance" and there may be a wide variety of them. Some people will value certain factors more than others.

You may have or apparently have or at least believe you have a value structure that rewards certain standards above others. But this does not mean that objectively those standards are correct or "best". It is a value structure. Or, if you will... it is a moral perspective.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Calm]

Am so confused by all this black and white semantics...can I be transported back to the 1950's where all we were concerned about was killing Communists and making money.

You are complaining about black and white and come up with that last line?

[CASteinman]

You are complaining about black and white and come up with that last line?

I took it that he was being ironic in some strange way. Its a bit odd because it undermines his point but I am not sure he sees it that way.

But I certainly don't think he was really being literal in this and so, its not exactly like he was being inconsistent.

[Calm]

I took it that he was being ironic in some strange way. Its a bit odd because it undermines his point but I am not sure he sees it that way.

But I certainly don't think he was really being literal in this and so, its not exactly like he was being inconsistent.

Perhaps he will be kind enough to clarify then...

[Bikeemikey]

So a different group could do it.

No. It was not a protest against failures. It was a sign of a failure to maintain control and relationships and it created a new form of ruling by an elite class.

I am not actually someone who believes that it is in the best interests for everyone to have a say. But it is our theoretical standard. The truth is, that we still have a sort of ruling elite. Which does not trouble me if they will judge righteous judgment.

Depends upon your "measure" of performing "better". In Multi-Attribute Decision Theory these are called "MOP"'s, or "Measures of Performance" and there may be a wide variety of them. Some people will value certain factors more than others.

You may have or apparently have or at least believe you have a value structure that rewards certain standards above others. But this does not mean that objectively those standards are correct or "best". It is a value structure. Or, if you will... it is a moral perspective.

I agree with your reference to my MOP's... if only my wife knew I thought my mopping was better than others... :-)

I certainly would rather be in a society where I have the freedom to live my religion with out fear of violence. Earning capacity provided comfort. Educational opportunity allowed for reasonable development of my Children. Health was reasonably well managed. These are my MOP's. Is there a better world where there is also the possibility of total religious cohesion and I world where I did not need to live next to those who lived an immoral life style that was both tolerated and considered superior to my own... sure.

But right now I get to live my religious beliefs to their fullest (possibly with the exception for govt over reach into polygamy) and also be safe and comfortable. All I have to do is speak nicely and tolerate to people who believe differently to me... and honestly I don't even need to speak nicely to them if I don't feel like it.

[CASteinman]

I agree with your reference to my MOP's... if only my wife knew I thought my mopping was better than others... :-)

I certainly would rather be in a society where I have the freedom to live my religion with out fear of violence. Earning capacity provided comfort. Educational opportunity allowed for reasonable development of my Children. Health was reasonably well managed. These are my MOP's. Is there a better world where there is also the possibility of total religious cohesion and I world where I did not need to live next to those who lived an immoral life style that was both tolerated and considered superior to my own... sure.

But right now I get to live my religious beliefs to their fullest (possibly with the exception for govt over reach into polygamy) and also be safe and comfortable. All I have to do is speak nicely and tolerate to people who believe differently to me... and honestly I don't even need to speak nicely to them if I don't feel like it.

Yes, I also have my moral perspectives -- my value judgments -- about what constitutes "best". These have led me to determine, after 1 or 2 decades, that I was not, after all, a Libertarian. For a long time I thought so. But I have concluded in the last decade that I am not.

In fact, from a certain perspective, I share some sense of government with "social progressives" -- who operate from the position that there are moral duties Government has in operation. I agree with that. I differ with many of them in what those moral duties are and in what order they should be prioritized.

Pragmatic clarity in understanding yourself (and others) without being worried about labels is helpful, I have found. Generally, I consider the broad and wide social progressive agenda to be a godless morality and I am not in agreement with that.

I don't mean for this to become political, but I think this actually has bearing on how we implement living the gospel in our lives -- to include the selection of government -- as ordained by God.

I also think it is relevant to preparation for the Last Days.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman