Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[gree0232]

Additionally, there are a lot of single heterosexual folks out there who hang out in bars. Does legal recognition of heterosexual marriages "pump advocacy" into what happens in those bars?

We've discussed this. Are homosexual acknowledging that they have, on average, an order of magnitude greater number of sex partners than the average heterosexual in a bar? And is marriage the solution to that promiscuity issue? The unacknowledged promiscuity issue?

[rockpond]

We've discussed this. Are homosexual acknowledging that they have, on average, an order of magnitude greater number of sex partners than the average heterosexual in a bar? And is marriage the solution to that promiscuity issue? The unacknowledged promiscuity issue?

I don't know. Are we acknowledging that decades of telling them that they aren't worthy of the same types of relationships as us heterosexuals may have helped lead them to this point?

Now, there are some who want to lead committed, monogamous lives. I say we let them rather then continue to say "no, you are too promiscuous and we don't believe you'll change."

[Calm]

Civil unions, like separate drinking fountains - both give equal tangible benefits, but both convey a 2nd class status on a disfavored group.

So you are stating they are fundamentally difference only in appearance (having a different name), right (even if that appearance carries enough baggage in your view to be detrimental)?

[gree0232]

To be fair, I did not intend to suggest that that is Gree's *only* argument. Just one aspect of his case against marriage equality.

He said: "... whether or not we want to pump advocacy into what is happening every day in gay bars across the world and term that not just 'normal' but something pristine and worthy of investment."

Is Gree not suggesting that allowing legally recognized marriages for gay couples would somehow advocate the promiscuity that could be happening in gay bars? Am I misunderstanding?

I don't think that anyone is saying that we should invest in what takes place in gay bars (whatever that is)... what we are discussing is opening up the institution of marriage to gay couples who desire to make such a commitment.

I'm open to understanding where I have misunderstood Gree in his/her statements.

An how to do you advocate heterosexual marriage without compulsion unless you allow people to choose? We advocate and indeed reward heterosexual marriage as the ideal to help PUSH into that, and we set programs, as does our church, an entire culture if you will, to help push toward that end state. People are free to choose.

That includes being gay. You can choose that. You can be as gay as you want to be. Is that what is ideal for our society? Is it like breaking dependence on foreign oil, thus tangibly justifying a credit of fuel efficient vehicles?

Or are we simply throwing money about because we have subsumed questions of sexual morality with delusions of WIlliam Wilberforce type grandeur is freeing a people who is ... neither enslaved nor oppressed .. merely not getting a tax break.

[gree0232]

I don't know. Are we acknowledging that decades of telling them that they aren't worthy of the same types of relationships as us heterosexuals may have helped lead them to this point?

Now, there are some who want to lead committed, monogamous lives. I say we let them rather then continue to say "no, you are too promiscuous and we don't believe you'll change."

And why do you think that is? Why indeed do we tell polygamists that? Pedophiles that?

You have no problem telling the later two no, but for some reason, homosexuality is different? Because you say so?

Terribly convincing that?

Edited May 22, 2013 by gree0232

[rockpond]

Prove it.

Because I think, as our church preaches, that we are masters of our own sexuality. That does not mean that everything sexual is as simple as choosing a pink shirt or a green shirt. Let me explain.

Alcohol. I am a covert. I have not touched alcohol since I converted. Not once. Before I go further, I have a question for the life long members of the church who have never touched alcohol: How many of you have ever had a craving for Cognac?

I am guessing that the number is right around ZERO.

Cognac, you see, is an acquired taste. In fact, the first time you taste it ... its overwhelming, the 40% alcohol, if you are not used to it, will literally overwhelm the pallet. Yet, with a little patience, you can develop a appreciation for the finer qualities of Cognac. There is a richness, a complexity of taste, that is a genuinely - in and of itself (no alcohol needed) an enjoyable experience. It is why Cognac in some circles is considered the finest of all alcohols.

I gave that up when I converted ... but there are, and I suspect there always will be, moments of temptation to return and again enjoy a snifter of Cognac.

Are those craving subject to my choice? Do I determine when are where they will strike? Am I enslaved to a life of torment unless I give into the quixotic daw of Cognac? Obviously not. Because I have agency, and because I firmly believe that we can master our cravings and choose to develop ourselves, in this case, into something more pleasing and worthy of a relationship with Heavenly Father and the interaction of the Holy Spirit. Those cravings are thus far less important to me than a relationship with Heavenly Father - I choose.

I suspect that there is a similar process at play with homosexuality. That young people are exposed to brush of skin, the excitement of romance, and the eroticism of passion and sexuality. Clearly homosexual activity is pleasurable for those engaged, and it doesn't take much to ponder at what point these ... urges are as much about addiction, or something similar, as it is in realizing that on the other side of the sexual encounter is a human being ... on that you can develop very deep feeling of affection for beyond merely the sexual act itself.

Well, I love my best friend. I would drop everything on a moment's notice should he need it. If he needed it, I would take steps to use my own resources, in a legally binding manner, to protect him and his family. Without question.

I will never, not ever, have sex with him.

There are definitive questions of morality at play here, and first and foremost among them is the proper role of sexuality in our lives; specifically whether we are masters of our sexuality or merely victims of our own uncontrollable urges.

'Can't change it,' is the calling card and excuse of every addict I have ever met, and I am completely unimpressed with that excuse (particularly in the sexual realm) ... backed up by not a shred of objective evidence. Why is anyone?

The choices we make on with sex define who and what we are as people. Adultery is a mortal wound to those who have been on the wrong side of it ... its not a genetic defect. Pedophilia is a crime that victimizes and abuses children, not a genetic malady that makes the perps into victims. Necrophilia is not 'harmless activity beyond choice or control, its a deliberate, and frankly unbelievably selfish, desecration. Homosexuality is an attraction, and just like nice girls who find themselves attracted to bad boys who abuse them, we can take steps to alter ourselves.

Saying its immutable, beyond choice, is as much a possibility of enabling as it a 'fact'.

Just like Alcohol, once you have developed a taste for it ... it can be dambed difficult to break. But then, you have a choice to make don't you? Our choices carry consequences. And they should.

I can't prove it and you can't prove the opposite.

The church teaches that we are masters of what we do with our own sexuality but the Brethren have said that we don't understand the causes of homosexual orientation and that some will not be free of it in this life.

I believe our gay brothers and lesbian sisters who say that their attractions were part of who they were even before they ever had any type of intimate contact. I have no reason to doubt their sincere statements.

If a homosexual wants to make the commitment to live a celibate life, I honor them for that. In the same way that you and I have committed to live the Word of Wisdom.

But some homosexuals feel that celibacy is not the correct option for them. Some feel that God Himself is telling that them that they should enjoy a loving relationship in this life. Who am I to tell them that they are wrong?

[go_utes01]

I don't know. Are we acknowledging that decades of telling them that they aren't worthy of the same types of relationships as us heterosexuals may have helped lead them to this point?

Now, there are some who want to lead committed, monogamous lives. I say we let them rather then continue to say "no, you are too promiscuous and we don't believe you'll change."

Are you implying that people need the recognition from government to lead committed, monogamous lives? If the government stopped, or never, recognized your relationship, you would dump your spouse and live a life of wild promiscuity? If so, you allow the government entirely too much control over your actions.

[go_utes01]

I can't prove it and you can't prove the opposite.

The church teaches that we are masters of what we do with our own sexuality but the Brethren have said that we don't understand the causes of homosexual orientation and that some will not be free of it in this life.

I believe our gay brothers and lesbian sisters who say that their attractions were part of who they were even before they ever had any type of intimate contact. I have no reason to doubt their sincere statements.

If a homosexual wants to make the commitment to live a celibate life, I honor them for that. In the same way that you and I have committed to live the Word of Wisdom.

But some homosexuals feel that celibacy is not the correct option for them. Some feel that God Himself is telling that them that they should enjoy a loving relationship in this life. Who am I to tell them that they are wrong?

A kind and loving brother attempting to help your brother or sister avoid the inevitable consequences of sin.

[rockpond]

And why do you think that it?

For me it seems logical... How often in testimony meetings do we get up and say that we can't imagine where we'd be without the gospel or without our spouses. I certainly feel that way.

Why indeed do we tell polygamists that?

Tell polygamists what? I've stated on this thread and elsewhere on these boards that I think polygamy should be legal.

Pedophiles that?

I believe we have a moral obligation (one that goes beyond religious affiliation) to protect our children.

You have no problem telling the later two no, but for some reason, homosexuality is different? Because you say so?

I think only consenting adults can marry. Under our legal system, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts. That answers the pedophilia question. And I think that polygamy should be legal. I've been quite clear on both of those points. Homsexuality isn't different... It's consenting adults who want to commit to each other.

[rockpond]

Are you implying that people need the recognition from government to lead committed, monogamous lives? If the government stopped, or never, recognized your relationship, you would dump your spouse and live a life of wild promiscuity? If so, you allow the government entirely too much control over your actions.

Nope. Just saying that the 14th amendment should apply.

[go_utes01]

Nope. Just saying that the 14th amendment should apply.

The post I responded to had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

[rockpond]

An how to do you advocate heterosexual marriage without compulsion unless you allow people to choose? We advocate and indeed reward heterosexual marriage as the ideal to help PUSH into that, and we set programs, as does our church, an entire culture if you will, to help push toward that end state. People are free to choose.

That includes being gay. You can choose that. You can be as gay as you want to be. Is that what is ideal for our society? Is it like breaking dependence on foreign oil, thus tangibly justifying a credit of fuel efficient vehicles?

Or are we simply throwing money about because we have subsumed questions of sexual morality with delusions of WIlliam Wilberforce type grandeur is freeing a people who is ... neither enslaved nor oppressed .. merely not getting a tax break.

Whether or not being gay is ideal for our society doesn't change that fact that some people are gay. I don't believe in telling them that they can't have their relationships legally recognized because they weren't lucky enough to be born into the ideal that you want our government to advocate.

[rockpond]

The post I responded to had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

My apologies. I'm responding to questions from about four different people. Trying to keep all the questions/people straight but struggling to keep up.

I think I've made my position clear. Not sure if I have the time to continue responding to this many people so I may have to leave the thread.

[rockpond]

A kind and loving brother attempting to help your brother or sister avoid the inevitable consequences of sin.

If someone who is gay has received personal revelation telling them that they should pursue a relationship, I don't believe what they are doing is a sin.

[go_utes01]

If someone who is gay has received personal revelation telling them that they should pursue a relationship, I don't believe what they are doing is a sin.

Obviously pursuing a relationship would not constitute sin, but a sexual relationship with somebody of the same gender would be a different situation. The SCOTUS may be authorized to determine what types of relationships the government is required to recognize as "marriages," but it certainly does not have authority to determine what Heavenly Father recognizes as marriage. And last I checked adultery remained a sin.

Edited May 22, 2013 by go_utes01

[gree0232]

If someone who is gay has received personal revelation telling them that they should pursue a relationship, I don't believe what they are doing is a sin.

And if God tell us in scripture that it is a Sin, do you think he would give a personal revelation in the opposite direction? Or might this be a case of rationalization? Manipulation?

What would you tell a young woman who came to you for advice, stating that a man she was attracted to told her he had received a 'personal revelation' that it was OK to engage in sex outside of marriage with her?

"Well, that's OK then!" Really?

[go_utes01]

And if God tell us in scripture that it is a Sin, do you think he would give a personal revelation in the opposite direction? Or might this be a case of rationalization? Manipulation?

What would you tell a young woman who came to you for advice, stating that a man she was attracted to told her he had received a 'personal revelation' that it was OK to engage in sex outside of marriage with her?

"Well, that's OK then!" Really?

If the out-of-wedlock couple received personal revelation, who are we to say otherwise? With that attitude, I hope rock pond is not in a position to advise my children.

Edited May 22, 2013 by go_utes01

[gree0232]

Whether or not being gay is ideal for our society doesn't change that fact that some people are gay. I don't believe in telling them that they can't have their relationships legally recognized because they weren't lucky enough to be born into the ideal that you want our government to advocate.

They can be, and indeed are, as gay as they want to be. We don't have to pay them for it.

I wasn't lucky enough to be born Bill Gates either - so clearly, not being a billionare philanthropist (which I believe I was born to be but do not have to prove in th slightest mind you) has clearly made me a victim.

Please, anyone who would like to help relieve me of this oppressive birthright, feel free to send me money or write your Congressman to see if they will pass a bill giving me several billion dollars so I can fulfill me obviously genetic calling and achieve the fullness I was born to?

Again, we are to take on faith you claim that people are simply 'born' gay. Really? But we are NOT 'born' to be polygamists, pedophiles ... etc.

A convenient excuse for addicts is it not?

[gree0232]

If the out-of-wedlock couple received personal revelation, who are we to say otherwise. With that attitude, I hope rock pond is not in a position to advise my children.

Because we have scripture, and Prophet who sets standards through divine revelation about such standards. If you choose to follow a personal 'rationalization' not revelation, you are subject to the discipline of the church.

Its called simple dishonesty.

[gree0232]

For me it seems logical... How often in testimony meetings do we get up and say that we can't imagine where we'd be without the gospel or without our spouses. I certainly feel that way.

Tell polygamists what? I've stated on this thread and elsewhere on these boards that I think polygamy should be legal.

I believe we have a moral obligation (one that goes beyond religious affiliation) to protect our children.

I think only consenting adults can marry. Under our legal system, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts. That answers the pedophilia question. And I think that polygamy should be legal. I've been quite clear on both of those points. Homsexuality isn't different... It's consenting adults who want to commit to each other.

I would like you to visit an fLDS compound. I would like you to see the women reduced to 'sister wives' who are raised typically with less education and empowerment to be sexualized play things for their husbands? Why not talk to the caste outs who are set adrift because, gender being born in roughly 50% its hard to have multiple wives when there is balance, so enjoy finding minor excuses to exile perfectly worthy men, who are cut of from friends, family, and faith, all so some randy old man can have another sexual play thing.

And you think that we should pay YOU money, indeed anyone in our society choosing this lifestyle ... to encourage it! Celebrate it! Let's celebrate the historical exploitation of women - exploitation that continues to this very day in the fLDS community and it the Middle East. Sounds great.

We will not pay you to engage in this behavior ... which is a choice, not something you were BORN with.

Should you choose, more power to you. Join the fLDS church. You will be excommunicated, immediately from this one, you can enjoy the carnal knowledge of your 14 year old wife, and the even greater pleasure of seeing your resulting sons exiled to the wilderness so that your neighbor's boy can have an extra wife ... in your daughter.

Sounds grand doesn't it?

And we have just demonstrated the process of rationalization, excusing one sin by justifying another.

Once again, a terribly convincing argument. We should legalize gay marriage, because the historical and current exploitation and sexual abuse of young women isn't as bad as it seems?

Wonderful. Seren logic at its finest.

[LDS4]

Tell me, you once had the R-I-G-H-T to buy opium, but we put in laws that criminalized pretty much the entire supply and consumption chain on that one. As we see in this thread, there are those who have taken a ... subjective viewpoint of that particular drug. So it's wrong is it?

If I choose to use opium in my basement where there is no danger of others being affected by it and where I will not drive while under its influence, I see no reason for government to ban it.

#1 - Who exactly is forcing their view points on whom? If the state legalizes gay marriage ... its not some esoteric piece of paper here, its an entire legal and financial framework as legally binding as ... being forced to buy car insurance. In doing so, the state thus gets to collect money, ostensibly from people who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, and pay to ENCOURAGE that lifestyle.

Now, exactly who is forcing what view point on the other?

Everyone pays taxes for things with which the disagree. Hippies don't want to pay for national defense, people with grown kids often don't feel that they should pay taxes for public schools, etc...Gays are being forced to subsidize heterosexuality because their tax dollars are going to pay for tax benefits which are denied them. Taxes are a non-issue in this. It boils down to Equal Protection and basic fairness.

#2 - So, tell me, when did a lifestyle that includes orders of magnitude more sexual partners on average become acceptable ... because sometimes people, excluding the data that indicates that promiscuity leads to divorce, decide its 'love' and want to marry?

Your assertion implies that ALL gays are promiscuous and that promiscuity should disqualify one from marriage. We allow current/former hookers to marry don't we? We allow others to marry whose activities or demographics are statistically likely to lead to divorce. People marrying young are much more likely to divorce. Should we dissallow a 20 y/o RM and his 18 y/o sweetheart marriage?

Might it be because we have accepted that homosexuality is like skin color? Only you cannot wake up one morning and decide NOT to be black or white can you? You CAN wake up one morning and decide not to have sex. And yet by acknowledging that CHOICE, somehow .. someway ... we have undercut a fundamental RIGHT ... and are pushing OUR values on others?

WHat does choice have to do with it? I choose my religion and my political party. Could laws be passed diminishing the rights of some religious or political group simply because they can still retain those rights by simply choosing to be another religion or political party? If they can choose to switch to retain the rights, why is that law wrong?

#3 - Do you think the homosexual community, upon being granted the RIGHT to marry is going to stop? That the community will become a bastion of tolerance having discovered just how effective the bullying of calling people 'bigots' is?

I have NO problem with gays being given FULL civil rights.

[LDS4]

As Wade has noted, in areas where SSM is legal, only a small percentage of gays - I don't believe it ever reaches anywhere near double digits - take advantage of it. And that includes out of state gays who come into those states to get married.

So what? Los Angeles elected a new mayor yesterday and less than 10% of the people voted. Should we take away the rights of those non voters to vote in future mayoral elections simply because they choose not to? Should LA get rid of mayoral elections all together and have the governor appoint the mayor since so few voted? how many have invoked their 5th Amendment rights in court? I bet less than 1 in a 1000. Should the 5th Amendment be abandoned then?

So yes, it is a narrow special interest group that is demanding the special privilege of SSM. And the Constitution doesn't support special privilege for narrow special interest groups,

Giving unpopular minorities equal rights and Equal Protection is hardly giving them a "special privilege".

This whole claim of gays being denied rights is simply bogus. It's a special privilege being demanded by a small percentage of gays that has clear potential for negatively impacting the basic right of freedom of religion.

That's what the Saudis say about Christians wanting to build churches. How is YOUR right to worship infringed by gays being married? this i gotta hear!

[LDS4]

homosexuals switching is rare ... but so common that the homosexual community coined the anecdotal term 'hasbian'.

As I mentioned, women are much more likely to experiment and be bi-sexual. Men who permanently switch and claim that they are no longer attracted to men are basically non-existent. Again, this has nothing to due with the issue of SSM.

Is there any other emphatic statements you would like me to take on faith? Or do you have any kind of documentation that refutes the cases I presented or what I saw in ... say Barcelona? Where the 'down low' culture of brick laying men cheating on their wives at night who went back to being happy heterosexuals the next day was ... common?

There are a lot of gay men who want families and marry women in order to have it and to avoid the persecution for being gay. Again, this has nothing to due with the issue of SSM.

[wenglund]

Right, and this is where you and I seem to get stuck. How does our government have a right to exclusively encourage your definition of traditional marriage? Or even a commonly held definition of traditional marriage?

The answer to your question is dependent upon how one answers this more fundamental question: "Does the government have the constitutional right to use tax laws to encourage any targeted social change?"

If the answer is no, then the answer to your question is that the government doesn't have the right to encourage, exclusively or otherwise, traditional marriage. It also doesn't have the right to establish a progressive income tax rates, or to offer income tax deductions for charitable contributions or dependents or home ownership, etc..

However, if the answer is yes, then the answer to your question is that the government does have the right to use income tax laws to encourage traditional marriage (please keep in mind that in the 1930s and 40s when the issue of joint filing for married couples was being debated and law enacted, the notion of SSM was inconceivable and absurd and thus not a factor of consideration. And, while there were non-traditional family structures at the time--like single parent families, it would have been inconceivable to consider them as "married," and so the joint filing status for income taxes wasn't framed at the time with the intent of being exclusive, but inclusive, though in accordance with what reasonably fit the essential, and only legal definition of marriage at the time--i.e. traditional marriage.)

Here is an excellent article that goes into greater depths on this specific issue: "Same-sex Marriage and Taxes."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

One's sexual orientation is an involuntary trait. I realize that they don't have to act on it but if you see sexual orientation as nothing more than a choice of who one has sex with, than we are too far apart to even continue discussing this with each other.

Sexual orientation wasn't directly relevant to the point I made and the point I was addressing. What was relevant was sexual relationships (which is why I explicitly mentioned sexual relationships and not orientation). If you can't distinguish between the two, and correctly follow the line of discussion, then this will be a significant impediment to productive conversation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-