Article On Deseret

[tyler90az]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578537/The-conjugal-and-revisionist-views-of-marriage.html

There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to imagine it was published on church owned news. No, I am not just talking about saying gays should not get married. It goes far beyond that. Grabs one points and makes a million jumps to something that makes no sense. So much so, that I do not have time to critique all the garbage in the article. This is exactly opposite of the site our church just came out with. Somebody who has time and a passion should critique the heck out of this paper.

[Gillebre]

I do not share your opinion, Tyler, and thought the article was absolutely wonderful. Definitely a good read. Gonna share it with some friends.

[ksfisher]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578537/The-conjugal-and-revisionist-views-of-marriage.html

There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to imagine it was published on church owned news. No, I am not just talking about saying gays should not get married. It goes far beyond that. Grabs one points and makes a million jumps to something that makes no sense. So much so, that I do not have time to critique all the garbage in the article. This is exactly opposite of the site our church just came out with. Somebody who has time and a passion should critique the heck out of this paper.

I've always enjoyed reading acticles by these writers. They are very much in favor of strong marriages and strong families, just like the church.

Edited April 20, 2013 by ksfisher

[tyler90az]

1. Insinuating gays are not faithful. Authors, "a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found."

2. Insinuates that gays wreck homes. Authors, "So, infidelity and abandoning spouses and children are labeled as “honest” and “brave” just as when married men who acknowledge that they are gay decide to finally be “true to themselves” and come out of the closet and leave their families to live with their same-sex partner."

3. Insinuates that supporters of ssm commend home wrecking. Authors, "Those who don’t give “tolerance” to this view are called bigots or homophobes or old-fashioned dinosaurs."

[CASteinman]

http://www.deseretne...f-marriage.html

There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to imagine it was published on church owned news. No, I am not just talking about saying gays should not get married. It goes far beyond that. Grabs one points and makes a million jumps to something that makes no sense. So much so, that I do not have time to critique all the garbage in the article. This is exactly opposite of the site our church just came out with. Somebody who has time and a passion should critique the heck out of this paper.

I am unable to detect anything wrong with this article. It appears to be pretty well done though I think it does not state the differences in as clear and distinct terms as it could.

[CASteinman]

1. Insinuating gays are not faithful. Authors, "a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found."

2. Insinuates that gays wreck homes. Authors, "So, infidelity and abandoning spouses and children are labeled as “honest” and “brave” just as when married men who acknowledge that they are gay decide to finally be “true to themselves” and come out of the closet and leave their families to live with their same-sex partner."

3. Insinuates that supporters of ssm commend home wrecking. Authors, "Those who don’t give “tolerance” to this view are called bigots or homophobes or old-fashioned dinosaurs."

While gays as a group may appear to define fidelity in an expansive -- one could say "revisionist" manner, and while some homosexuals do wreck marriages, including their own, and while some supporters of same sex marriage are in favor of home wrecking, the article does not say any of that.

Your criticisms are not supported by the text.

Edited April 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865578537/The-conjugal-and-revisionist-views-of-marriage.html

There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to imagine it was published on church owned news. No, I am not just talking about saying gays should not get married. It goes far beyond that. Grabs one points and makes a million jumps to something that makes no sense. So much so, that I do not have time to critique all the garbage in the article. This is exactly opposite of the site our church just came out with. Somebody who has time and a passion should critique the heck out of this paper.

I am pro-SSM... But this was a good article, though i didn't agree with the all of it was expressed. SSM is a major threat to traditional marriage... This does not warrant the restriction of marriage to same sex folks.

I am pro-SSM but also believe we need more open confrontation between the LDS view of marriage and relationships and view more common in the world today.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[cinepro]

There are two basic alternative ways in which to view marriage, and the two are essentially at war in today’s world.

1. Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, which forms a physical and an emotional and a spiritual bond distinguished by its comprehensiveness and its fidelity. This is often called the conjugal view, or traditional marriage.

2. Marriage can be viewed simply as a loving emotional bond distinguished by its intensity — a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found. This is often called the revisionist view.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that the history of marriage is one of fidelity and commitment. Certainly, that is the ideal for many people today, but I hardly think that cultures and individuals the world over for the history of mankind have aspired to such ideals to the point that we can consider it a universal "tradition". I even suspect spousal and child abuse have been a more consistent part of historical marriage than anything else.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.deseretne...f-marriage.html

There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to imagine it was published on church owned news.

Richard and Linda Eyre are opinion columnists whose column is carried in a general circulation newspaper. As such, their opinions do not necessarily reflect the postion of the Church itself or the newspaper in which their column appears. Such is the case with newspapers, including the Deseret News.

That said, I reject this assertion that you make:

This is exactly opposite of the site our church just came out with.

If you really believe that, you, like a few others I've observed, have grossly misinterpreted the intent and message of the new website,

The website does not soften its position on the wrongness of same-sex "marriage." On the contrary, it reaffirms it.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that the history of marriage is one of fidelity and commitment. Certainly, that is the ideal for many people today, but I hardly think that cultures and individuals the world over for the history of mankind have aspired to such ideals to the point that we can consider it a universal "tradition".

Widely successful or not, having that as the ideal is certainly traditional.

My wife and I have succeeded at it, as have most of those in our extended famlies. I don't know that we're all that exceptional. Heaven help our society if it gets to the point that we are.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[BCSpace]

1. Insinuating gays are not faithful. Authors, "a bond in which fidelity is subject to one’s own desires — a bond which one leaves when emotional fulfillment is no longer found."

2. Insinuates that gays wreck homes. Authors, "So, infidelity and abandoning spouses and children are labeled as “honest” and “brave” just as when married men who acknowledge that they are gay decide to finally be “true to themselves” and come out of the closet and leave their families to live with their same-sex partner."

3. Insinuates that supporters of ssm commend home wrecking. Authors, "Those who don’t give “tolerance” to this view are called bigots or homophobes or old-fashioned dinosaurs."

I didn't read the article to verify your claims, but I couldn't help but notice that your list of "insinuations" are actually facts:

1. According to the Church's own policy on gays and how they can repent and serve in the Church, starting with the article God Loveth His Children, it is wrong to self identify as homosexual. Similar to RGIII's (though black skin and homosexuality themselves are not comparable) comments on not wanting to be defined by race. So in that context, gays are not faithful when they go about acting and speaking as if there is nothing they can do about it.

2. Gays do wreck homes, marriages, and families. How? By presenting an alternative to the ideal condition of a married man and woman and sexual relations only therein.

3. Supporters of SSM do commend #2 and therefore are in conflict with the Gospel and the LDS Church by extension. Consider Romans 1:32. Those who "take pleasure" in sins (referring to but not limited to a vast list, which includes homosexuality, earlier in the chapter), not just those who actually commit them, are under condemnation. Lexically, in the Greek, "taking pleasure" is aiding, abetting, supporting, etc.

Edited April 20, 2013 by BCSpace

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm not always a fan of the Eyres -- I find their style a bit off-putting -- but I gave this a read, and it's spot-on. Tyler, that you somehow think that this opinion piece would not meet the approval of the apostles leaves me, well, just a bit puzzled. Did you listen to the most recent General Conference?

Edited April 20, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that the history of marriage is one of fidelity and commitment.

You might be surprised. In my part of the world, pre-colonial attitudes towards marriage were characterised specifically by strict fidelity and commitment. Infidelity by either party was grounds for 'divorce', and if the offending party was the male, the wife kept the entire bride-price as compensation. This amongst peoples who weren't too fussed about sexual behaviour before marriage.

I even suspect spousal and child abuse have been a more consistent part of historical marriage than anything else.

I suspect you may be speaking from a particularly Eurocentric bias here.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[tyler90az]

Richard and Linda Eyre are opinion columnists whose column is carried in a general circulation newspaper. As such, their opinions do not necessarily reflect the postion of the Church itself or the newspaper in which their column appears. Such is the case with newspapers, including the Deseret News.

That said, I reject this assertion that you make:

If you really believe that, you, like a few others I've observed, have grossly misinterpreted the intent and message of the new website,

The website does not soften its position on the wrongness of same-sex "marriage." On the contrary, it reaffirms it.

I am trying to figure out where you are coming up with your failure to read my mind. No where in this post nor any of my posts does it say the church has softened its position.

Are you agreeing with everything I objected to in the article?

Edited April 20, 2013 by tyler90az

[tyler90az]

I didn't read the article to verify your claims, but I couldn't help but notice that your list of "insinuations" are actually facts:

1. According to the Church's own policy on gays and how they can repent and serve in the Church, starting with the article God Loveth His Children, it is wrong to self identify as homosexual. Similar to RGIII's (though black skin and homosexuality themselves are not comparable) comments on not wanting to be defined by race. So in that context, gays are not faithful when they go about acting and speaking as if there is nothing they can do about it.

2. Gays do wreck homes, marriages, and families. How? By presenting an alternative to the ideal condition of a married man and woman and sexual relations only therein.

3. Supporters of SSM do commend #2 and therefore are in conflict with the Gospel and the LDS Church by extension. Consider Romans 1:32. Those who "take pleasure" in sins (referring to but not limited to a vast list, which includes homosexuality, earlier in the chapter), not just those who actually commit them, are under condemnation. Lexically, in the Greek, "taking pleasure" is aiding, abetting, supporting, etc.

Point one was not intended towards faith in God. Which a gay can actually do just as well as any other human being. It was meant to read as faithful to partner.

[Five Solas]

was anyone else amused by the first comment to the article?

"Marriage can be viewed, as it has since history began, as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman"

Would this characterization have been made in the context that existed in Utah prior to 1890?

ouch!

--Erik