Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[gree0232]

I find it very interesting that very hostile people accuse others of being hostile.

There is nothing hostile about stating a theory and supporting it with strong evidence.

The reason that whether homosexuality is choice or not is that, as I have explained, it is exactly that which is at issue in the current legal discourse over gay marriage. As I have explained, which is now somehow hostile to explain this, the form of discrimination is based on the same concept of immutability that defines other forms of discrimination - i.e. its immutable (or not). If homosexuality is indeed born into us, if we have no ability to exercise our God given agency, then yes, it is descrimination of the first order to deny homosexuals equality.

If there is a component of choice - then it is not descrimination at all.

It is a cut and dry legal question.

Could it be that the scientific data is not as strong s I believe? Of course. I see no one making a science based case in support of homosexuality being immutable. Indeed, the scientific evidence where we would expect to find it ... is simply not there. Again, if homosexuality is genetic, then by Mendel's proof's, it shoudl be recessive. There are cases of lesbian mothers and gay fathers who have children through one method or another, and their chidlren are ... heterosexual. That is impossible if the parents only have the recessive 'gay' gene to pass along. Furthermore, the mapped human genome can find no gay gene corroberating that initial data point. We also have, as I have shown repeatedly, people's whose sexuality evolves over time ... indeed, in college there were young men and women who made sport of trying to 'turn' homosexuals - and every notch on their belt is a strike against the claim of immutable sexuality.

To state these things in a factual manner is neither hostile, nor does it cross the line on anything. Rather, it demonstartes what I most strongly disagree with in homosexual marriage debate - the public roasting and demonization whose goal is to prevaricate a facts based discussion.

Worse, in rejecting the current line of argumentation all manner of assumptions are foisted about intentions and character that are simply uncalled for, and whose purpose appears to be, as I exclaimed, to push the darker side of the homosexual community into the shadows. Things do not remain in the shadows. For any of us.

And there is something to be said about an objective analysis of claims. I wonder for a second how many homosexuals realize the dangers of genetic cause for their sexuality in an era of gene therapy? Gay? No problem, we'll just change your genes, and you are cured. Is accepting this line of thought really in the best interests of the homosexual community? Because it makes the current argument easier?

Worse, is the implication of legal standards and doctrine. Accepting that a form of homosexuality, without evidence (or becaise as best said the available evidence isn't good enough - when none is presenting in dissenting position), is a standard that must surely apply to other forms of sexuality.

That key question of immutability has legal standing OUTSIDE the homosexual debate. If it is decrimination to deny gay marriage because the sexuality of the individual is immutable and unchangeable ... then so to mustit be for other forms of sexuality. That places all manner of legal imputis on clearly deviant forms of sexuality - like pedophila and necrophilia to name but a few. If indeed they are 'just born that way', and the scientific documentation needed to support that is merely the supposition that the science may not be clear ... then legally is discrimination to criminalize this activity. Their sexuality is merely immutable - unchangable.

Again, I am not totally hostile to the ideals of gay marriage, and, as I have stated, having seen the overt sexuality of the community, it may even bring some badly needed stability to community. That is a question that is best left to testing rather than leaping. The states that have legalized it should be allowed to see what happens and data points gathered to ascertain effectiveness ... this is in linhe, BTW, with recently published briefs from the SCOTUS who have publicly declared that thy are hestitent to use the bench to make a sweeping change.

Finally, there is the component of choice verses immutability. It is this line of inquiry that most defines my position on sexuality in general: we are responsible for our actions - period - end of discussion. If someone is struggling with promiscuity, that is certainly a difficult road to travel. However, at no point would anyone accept the excuse that the person just was a promiscuous person and unable to change who he or she was ... therefore the promiscuity and all its consequences are ... what exactly? Gone? Won't happen any more? Why when these sexual temptations occur to the opposite gender do we suddenly believe that these sexual im[ulses are normal? Do the consequences of promiscuity suddenly disappear because the attraction is same gender? Why then is our counsel in these two similiar situations ... fundamentally opposite?

What is most at issue in this debate, in my opinion, is the proper subordination of sexual desire our lives. It speaks first and foremost to the first commandment, to worship no God other than God - and sex and its potentially addictive qualities, particularly in this day and age, isn't something to dismiss on the unproven addage of immutability. he legal implications of acceoting such a claim go well beyond the homosexual debate, and it is the unwise who allow themselves to become so swept up in the current emotionalism of the question that we lose sight of greater principles and complications by adopting a win at all costs attitude to current arguements.

In the end, there is enough room in scripture that the homosexual community can make a compelling case, and with patience and time, should that be right, it will come to fruitition. It is there case to make however.

Again, the current form of demonization, "agree with me or you are a bigot," is emotional blackmail of the first order and I reject as whole heartedly as is humanly possible. Second, the claim of sexual immutablity is dubious at best and undermines both personal responsibility and serious legal implication for truly deviate forms of sexuality, thus I reject it whole heartedly.

At no point does that cross the line into rejecting a person because he or she is homosexual - it does reject the claim that one is powerless to control their homosexuality. The later, I simply do not buy. Nor would I buy such an excuse from anyone struggling with an sexual aspect.

[Daniel2]

If there is a component of choice - then it is not descrimination at all.

It is a cut and dry legal question.

This argument is clearly flawed. Civil rights don't depend on choice vs. immutability. For example, religious affiliation is neither biological nor innate--it is entirely a matter of choice. And yet, our government recognizes the importance of each individual's civil right to join and practice the religion of their own choice.

Something tells me you would not agree with religious discrimination or preferential civil treatment of individuals by our government based on the fact that there is "a component of choice" with regards to one's religion. In fact, our government seeks to civilly treat all religions equally, even though the individual fruits of some religions yield more nutritional benefit (scientifically or even medically speaking) than the fruit of other religions.

FWIW, of course we can choose to control our own sexual behaviors--just like we can choose to control our religious behaviors (no one is "immutably-fixed to marry or have physical relations with someone of their same religion"), or just like we could control our interracial behaviors (no one is "immutably-fixed to marry or have physical relations with someone of another race").

But those are all beside the point, when it comes to the concept that two consenting adults have a civil right to choose their own spouse (whether that spouse be of the same or a different religious affiliation; whether that spouse be of the same or a different race; or whether that spouse be of the same or a different gender) without government interference.

Daniel2

Edited May 14, 2013 by Daniel2

[Stone holm]

So, where's the reference to the Ensign article you claimed to be reading?

I posted it, along with the quote. It was I believe the Sept 2000 issue "No More Strangers" by Elder Morrison. I no longer have the full quote but he did qualify his statement saying the Church had never had a problem with the more malignant manifestations of racism. Which prompted me to go through my set of JD where I was surprised to discover that BY stated the curse not only was as to the Priesthood, but also sentenced them to be slaves, although he said they should not be treated as brutes. So you think not treating them as brutes qualified our racism as not being malignant. Seems like a pretty low bar. Perhaps as low as your position as to what does not constitute being anti gay.

[jwhitlock]

I posted it, along with the quote. It was I believe the Sept 2000 issue "No More Strangers" by Elder Morrison. I no longer have the full quote but he did qualify his statement saying the Church had never had a problem with the more malignant manifestations of racism. Which prompted me to go through my set of JD where I was surprised to discover that BY stated the curse not only was as to the Priesthood, but also sentenced them to be slaves, although he said they should not be treated as brutes. So you think not treating them as brutes qualified our racism as not being malignant. Seems like a pretty low bar. Perhaps as low as your position as to what does not constitute being anti gay.

My, my. I went back quite a ways in your posts and found no reference provided; in fact, I found no quote - just this sentence from your post #102: " I remember reading awhile back in an Ensign article that the Church never had a problem with racism and remembering that I almost choked." Of course, your statement here is inconsistent anyway; you say you had a quote (bolded) and then you say you no longer have the quote. Then you admit that the statement was qualified so as to be quite different than your initial "recollection". Now you regale us with something you'll also term as "quotes" from the Journal of Discourses, which are actually your paraphrases of what you think it says, and for which we have no further references. Then, to top it off, you carry on a congratulatory conversation with yourself for successfully identifying the church as racist, and not only that, inferring that it was actually malignant racism because our "bar is so low". And with that neat piece of intellectual exertion, you say that thus my bar is so low that I really have no idea what constitutes being anti-gay.

Thanks for sharing. It's been wonderful talking with you, but I really don't think you have anything cogent to add at this point. Have a nice evening.

[Bikeemikey]

Either you are for expanding government involvement to include homosexual relationships, or you are against government involvement altogether. If you are for the former, then it doesn't make sense to argue the latter. If you are for the latter, then logically you are against the former. You can't logically have it both ways. Please, make up your mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your proposed logical fallacy is simply a fallacy.

I am for govt using the principle of narrow moral judgement (harm) when generating legislative and coercive policy and when using incentives.

As such... I see two reasonable solutions that are both superior to the current US norm:

1. Get out of the marriage business or

2. Treat all relationship contracts the same (preferably with no incentive related to the relationship it self).

As such I can coherently argue for either the expansion of govt to SSM or the retraction of govt from all marriage from the same originating principle.

Also, I never said I hadn't heard any libertarian arguments for SSM... I said I had heard no coherent ones. I don't find your arguments coherent (though I don't see them as libertarian either).

Wade, you strike me more as a conservative moralist masquerading as a libertarian. That's fine by me and is not a criticism... Libertarian principles are generally woefully idealistic and unimplementable...

I just haven't seen anything in your arguments to suggest a real libertarian underpinning.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

This argument is clearly flawed. Civil rights don't depend on choice vs. immutability. For example, religious affiliation is neither biological nor innate--it is entirely a matter of choice. And yet, our government recognizes the importance of each individual's civil right to join and practice the religion of their own choice.

Something tells me you would not agree with religious discrimination or preferential civil treatment of individuals by our government based on the fact that there is "a component of choice" with regards to one's religion.

FWIW, of course we can choose to control our own sexual behaviors--just like we can choose to control our religious behaviors (no one is "immutably-fixed to marry or have physical relations with someone of their same religion"), or just like we could control our interracial behaviors (no one is "immutably-fixed to marry or have physical relations with someone of another race").

But those are all beside the point, when it comes to the concept that two consenting adults have a civil right to choose their own spouse (whether that spouse be of the same or a different religious affiliation; whether that spouse be of the same or a different race; or whether that spouse be of the same or a different gender) without government interference.

Daniel2

Thanks daniel2,

This excellent response has saved me from needing to write my own... Gree0323 seems to be obsessed with this non-issue.

The beauty of freedom and liberty and legal protection is that I get my choices protected, not just my DNA.

I choose to be mormon. I am afforded the same respect and protection as any other person.

[gree0232]

This argument is clearly flawed. Civil rights don't depend on choice vs. immutability. For example, religious affiliation is neither biological nor innate--it is entirely a matter of choice. And yet, our government recognizes the importance of each individual's civil right to join and practice the religion of their own choice.

Something tells me you would not agree with religious discrimination or preferential civil treatment of individuals by our government based on the fact that there is "a component of choice" with regards to one's religion. In fact, our government seeks to civilly treat all religions equally, even though the individual fruits of some religions yield more nutritional benefit (scientifically or even medically speaking) than the fruit of other religions.

FWIW, of course we can choose to control our own sexual behaviors--just like we can choose to control our religious behaviors (no one is "immutably-fixed to marry or have physical relations with someone of their same religion"), or just like we could control our interracial behaviors (no one is "immutably-fixed to marry or have physical relations with someone of another race").

But those are all beside the point, when it comes to the concept that two consenting adults have a civil right to choose their own spouse (whether that spouse be of the same or a different religious affiliation; whether that spouse be of the same or a different race; or whether that spouse be of the same or a different gender) without government interference.

Daniel2

But that is not what homosexuals are arguing is it? Were they arguing that their homosexuality were a protected choice, on legal grounds they may have standing ... but that pro-offers the point of personal responsibility ... as it does for religion. It raises the question, "Well, then why do you choose to be gay?"

Well, I was just born that way.

Ergo, the legal basis for discrimination cannot rest with choice as per religion. The reasoning for discrimination, legally, is thus akin to skin color or gender - which are immutable.

And teh larger question about choosing a spouse is whether or not, on a governmental level ... we should be encouraging people to choose a spouse of the same sex ... which, cannot biologically produce children (two men) or requires outside help (two women). Exactly what societal level benefit do we have in stating that the effect, or likely effect is the same as heterosexual marriage ... with greater financial incentives for having children in a stable environment?

It raises issues of that much maligned Regernus Study, that found issues with being raised in same sex households - which we scoff at and call bigoted or loaded, but an independent review found the methodology used to be sound.

It raises the question: are all questions regarding relationship really equal? And if so, must we also create a special tax category for people who choose to remain single? Are we discriminating against them if we do not treat their choices as exactly equal to everyone else's?

Or can government create policies that reward certain types of behavior over others?

No one is saying that homosexuals cannot be homosexual. No one is saying that they cannot make deep commitment and love one another. The point of contention is whether we want to equalize same sex relationships with heterosexual relations by giving them the same policy level incentives. Are all the choices we make equally beneficial for our society?

Assuming of course that homosexuality is a choice ... and as we see earlier in the thread, the Southern Poverty Law Center is pretty unequivocal that it is 'immutable'.

Obviously, I did not make this point entirely clear, but the immutability question, of just being born that way, is the current tenet of argumentation before the courts. It happens to be one that I strongly disagree with, not because I have some extreme displeasure with homosexuality ... but because sexuality is a subject that includes topics beyond homosexuality, and the idea that we cannot master our own sexual choices is anathema to me. (That does not mean that it is not difficult, only that it is possible).

Worse still is the idea that we cannot live full and rich lives unless the sexual aspect of our lives is fully sated. Would we stop loving our spouse, would her value become nothing, if she were injured in a manner in which she could no longer perform sexually but her heart and mind remained active and attentive? In short, is there more to a love based relationship than sex?

It comes down to a question of sexuality, in a general sense, and its role in our lives. It can be a wonderful aspect of our lives, but it can take control of our lives in a very serious manner with very serious repercussions as well. "Just born that way," is a cop out on many levels. The disagreement on the point is less about the specific application of homosexuality, and more about the general idea that sexuality is immutable in both a moral and legal sense.

The issue is not as simple as being a civil right champion on one side and a bigot on the other.

I will state again, the best method on gay marriage is to use the federal system the way it is intended. Allow some states to explore the option and discern the effects. We already have civil unions in France as an example to study an gleen information, and it has created problems in French Society which lead to the full legalization of homosexual marriage in France ... the jury is out. The effects are not known.

This is simply not a case where homosexual are in bondage and suffering as slaves were, this is a case of economically viable, well educated, and largely accepted portion of our society is asking society to change its rules without really seeing where the changes will lead. There is every reason to slow the process down a bit reduce the hyperbole and mutual recrimination, and see what comes of granting the 'right' to same sex marriage.

We must also be mindful of what is waiting in the wings of the homosexual marriage debate. It is, again to clarify, less about homosexual marriage and more about some very deviant forms of sexuality whose adherents will happily pray upon the legal consensus, should it be generated, of sexual immutability.

Please bear in mind, there are groups like NAMBLA out there preaching that love, and sex, between full grown men and children is natural and simply 'born'. We have a very tough time in a legal sense telling these guys, "Go screw yourself!," at the same time we are telling homosexuals that there sexuality is perfectly normal because it is an immutable characteristic they were simply born with - so too, will groups like NAMBLA claim, are they.

This is a debate less about science than it is about morality regarding sexuality - and we must tread carefully in this instance to ensure that the easiest legal arguments to defend - I am just born this way therefore you are discriminating against me - are not used in a manner that undermines the real moral question at issue here.

Simply put, homosexuality cannot be a special form of sexuality all onto itself - not legally and not morally. If its a choice, that is a more difficult position to defend for homosexuals, of that there is little doubt, but there are avenues to explore in that aspect. If it is immutable, thus discrimination ... I fear greatly that accepting such logic opens up a Pandora's box to the legal issues regarding human sexuality.

[gree0232]

Thanks daniel2,

This excellent response has saved me from needing to write my own... Gree0323 seems to be obsessed with this non-issue.

The beauty of freedom and liberty and legal protection is that I get my choices protected, not just my DNA.

I choose to be mormon. I am afforded the same respect and protection as any other person.

I will once again ask that you stop directing comments at me personally. You do not know me or anything about me.

I will ask that if you disagree with something that I wrote that you kindly, and in keeping with basic civility, direct them toward the argument pro-offered.

I will state again, the aspect of this very public debate is the tendency of the homosexual side to quickly demonize those who disagree with them. Such tactics have no place in reasoned discourse. Though you may feel strongly on the subject, if tolerance and acceptance are really what you want, then I strongly recommend that you display some of that invaluable mutual respect and tolerance and kindly stop making comments directed at a person you know nothing about.

That is twice. First I cannot be 'lds' unless I agree with you, and now the immutability question is irrelevant - even though it is central to the current debate? Or is it simply that because you cannot answer the argument it is easier to simply malign your opponent? If so, I will remind you that te the portion I have stated about this debate is that cat calls of bigotry whose real goal is to silence dissent and push genuine issues and concerns into the shadow ... were they will not remain.

Once again, I will refer you to the point about taking steps to reduce the acrimony and hyperbole around the issue. Simply put, you induce no one to change their mind by insulting someone.

If you think homosexuality is a choice or not - kindly make a case. I believe I have done so.

Also, please bear in mind, not all choices are equally protected. If you choose to be a satan worshiper who performs criminal acts as part of your religion ... your choice is not legally protected. Religions that veer off the course can also have their government incentive revoked ... like tax-exempt status or protected free speech delineation. That question comes down to an objective analysis of the choice and consequences ... and I see none of that analysis in your position - only the, whatever defeats the current argument - so dambed be the consequences.

Edited May 14, 2013 by gree0232

[gree0232]

Your proposed logical fallacy is simply a fallacy.

I am for govt using the principle of narrow moral judgement (harm) when generating legislative and coercive policy and when using incentives.

As such... I see two reasonable solutions that are both superior to the current US norm:

1. Get out of the marriage business or

2. Treat all relationship contracts the same (preferably with no incentive related to the relationship it self).

As such I can coherently argue for either the expansion of govt to SSM or the retraction of govt from all marriage from the same originating principle.

Also, I never said I hadn't heard any libertarian arguments for SSM... I said I had heard no coherent ones. I don't find your arguments coherent (though I don't see them as libertarian either).

Wade, you strike me more as a conservative moralist masquerading as a libertarian. That's fine by me and is not a criticism... Libertarian principles are generally woefully idealistic and unimplementable...

I just haven't seen anything in your arguments to suggest a real libertarian underpinning.

What you write above is a classic false dilemma:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

It is the fallacy of all or nothing, and in line with the previous post - the argument doesn't address many of the basic tenets that are germane to the issue of sexuality.

Indeed, the choice your all or nothing dilemma produces is that ALL marriages must be treated as equal ... ostensibly polygamous marriages, marriages to vegetables, to children, etc. The second you enter a moral question into your dilemma you induce the very inequality of choice that governments are faced with on a policy level of advocating one choice over another.

I will state that the sexual desire a gay man feels is every bit as compelling in a man tempted by ... necrophilia.

At some point, our society must have tools that allow us to objectively and explainably tell some people "yes" and other people "no".

Undoubtedly, those we say "No" to will not like it. Welcome to the reality of responsibility in leadership.

[Bikeemikey]

What you write above is a classic false dilemma:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

It is the fallacy of all or nothing, and in line with the previous post - the argument doesn't address many of the basic tenets that are germane to the issue of sexuality.

Indeed, the choice your all or nothing dilemma produces is that ALL marriages must be treated as equal ... ostensibly polygamous marriages, marriages to vegetables, to children, etc. The second you enter a moral question into your dilemma you induce the very inequality of choice that governments are faced with on a policy level of advocating one choice over another.

I will state that the sexual desire a gay man feels is every bit as compelling in a man tempted by ... necrophilia.

At some point, our society must have tools that allow us to objectively and explainably tell some people "yes" and other people "no".

Undoubtedly, those we say "No" to will not like it. Welcome to the reality of responsibility in leadership.

Gree0232,

My position is not a false dilemma where I have stated either x or y must be true. I have simply stated what I believe to be reasonable grounds for legitimate govt. coercion (harm - that is violation of consent) and from that provided two superior alternatives to the current structure.

You believe the govt should be heavily invested in guiding and incentivizing a broad spectrum of moral choice - I do not. As such we will not see eye to eye on the subject. If is that simple.

This whole question on immutability vs. choice is redundant based on my framework. It has no bearing on the case... Only only this that matters is mutual consent.

Furthermore, your slippery slope concern regarding marriage to vegetables and children and some other of your examples are impossible - where there is no informed and legitimate consent there can be no relationship for the state to endorse... In fact... Where there is no consent there is crime. Children can not consent, laws already define this as the age of consent, and violation of this is criminal.

In my model of libertarian govt the state must treat all contracts between consenting adults equally. Preferencing some above others with out demonstrating harm runs contrary to the legitimate limitation of govt. coercion. At present contracts between gay couples do not provide health insurance benefits, social security benefits, military benefits, sometimes inheritance benefits, end of life decision making benefits - this creates substantial govt coercion. Even though I do not agree with the homosexual choice I more strongly object to this govt coercion.

[Bikeemikey]

I will once again ask that you stop directing comments at me personally. You do not know me or anything about me.

I will ask that if you disagree with something that I wrote that you kindly, and in keeping with basic civility, direct them toward the argument pro-offered.

I will state again, the aspect of this very public debate is the tendency of the homosexual side to quickly demonize those who disagree with them. Such tactics have no place in reasoned discourse. Though you may feel strongly on the subject, if tolerance and acceptance are really what you want, then I strongly recommend that you display some of that invaluable mutual respect and tolerance and kindly stop making comments directed at a person you know nothing about.

That is twice. First I cannot be 'lds' unless I agree with you, and now the immutability question is irrelevant - even though it is central to the current debate? Or is it simply that because you cannot answer the argument it is easier to simply malign your opponent? If so, I will remind you that te the portion I have stated about this debate is that cat calls of bigotry whose real goal is to silence dissent and push genuine issues and concerns into the shadow ... were they will not remain.

Once again, I will refer you to the point about taking steps to reduce the acrimony and hyperbole around the issue. Simply put, you induce no one to change their mind by insulting someone.

Gree0232,

Let me address a few of your claims directly:

1. Your response above was to a post I made addressed to Daniel2. I did reference you in the post to highlight that his response that I was endorsing was in relationship to your multiple arguments about immutability.

2. I do not know you and any comments I have made to you have been specific to the ideas you have shared on the thread. I have referred to your immutability argument as something that you seem to be a little obsessed with... If that is what you are referring to then I apologize. If it was something else then please quote my post that offended and I will apologize for that also.

3. I do not think I have demonized you. I think that your immutability vs. choice argument has no bearing on the discussion, but I fail to see where you have been demonized by me. As this is an accusation against me I request that you CFR this said demonization.

4. Your false polarization of "homosexual side" and your side is not accurate. I am not on the homosexual side of the debate, nor am I on your side. I am on the side for reasonable and limited govt and I am willing to support the cause of those whose moral actions I personally disagree with in order to restrict govt intrusion into anyones personal life.

5. CFR that i ever said you cannot be LDS if you don't agree with me.

6. Yes, your immutability concern is irrelevant. Daniel2 has provided some good insight into why and I have also shared some of my thoughts on this also. It has been answered.

7. I have no issue with you challenging the homosexual lifestyle. I do not object to you standing from the rooftops and telling people it is wrong, evil, ill conceived, dangerous, destructive to children, a choice and not immutable, sin etcetera. I think we need more public debate about the merits if the lifestyle and more freedom to study it and really weigh and measure it. My concern is that while you are doing that you are asking to govt to treat homosexual couples differently in terms of benefits and entitlements because you don't like there moral choice. But then I don't think any couple should receive benefits and entitlements for being in a relationship.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Gree0232,

Let me address a few of your claims directly:

1. Your response above was to a post I made addressed to Daniel2. I did reference you in the post to highlight that his response that I was endorsing was in relationship to your multiple arguments about immutability.

2. I do not know you and any comments I have made to you have been specific to the ideas you have shared on the thread. I have referred to your immutability argument as something that you seem to be a little obsessed with... If that is what you are referring to then I apologize. If it was something else then please quote my post that offended and I will apologize for that also.

3. I do not think I have demonized you. I think that your immutability vs. choice argument has no bearing on the discussion, but I fail to see where you have been demonized by me. As this is an accusation against me I request that you CFR this said demonization.

4. Your false polarization of "homosexual side" and your side is not accurate. I am not on the homosexual side of the debate, nor am I on your side. I am on the side for reasonable and limited govt and I am willing to support the cause of those whose moral actions I personally disagree with in order to restrict govt intrusion into anyones personal life.

5. CFR that i ever said you cannot be LDS if you don't agree with me.

6. Yes, your immutability concern is irrelevant. Daniel2 has provided some good insight into why and I have also shared some of my thoughts on this also. It has been answered.

7. I have no issue with you challenging the homosexual lifestyle. I do not object to you standing from the rooftops and telling people it is wrong, evil, ill conceived, dangerous, destructive to children, a choice and not immutable, sin etcetera. I think we need more public debate about the merits if the lifestyle and more freedom to study it and really weigh and measure it. My concern is that while you are doing that you are asking to govt to treat homosexual couples differently in terms of benefits and entitlements because you don't like there moral choice. But then I don't think any couple should receive benefits and entitlements for being in a relationship.

I think the immutability question is possibly still relevant in religious forums. Which appears in part why the Church is now muting its political aggressiveness and cautioning the Saints about ill treatment of gays. It may have been relevant in early days of the culture war in the political/judicial arena, but the studies suggesting that orientation, at least amongst a portion of the community, is no longer as a practical matter a choice appear to outweigh those which find otherwise. As a result, the population as a whole is moving away from condemning it.

[Bikeemikey]

I think the immutability question is possibly still relevant in religious forums. Which appears in part why the Church is now muting its political aggressiveness and cautioning the Saints about ill treatment of gays. It may have been relevant in early days of the culture war in the political/judicial arena, but the studies suggesting that orientation, at least amongst a portion of the community, is no longer as a practical matter a choice appear to outweigh those which find otherwise. As a result, the population as a whole is moving away from condemning it.

I would agree that the immutability may have a place in the religious discussion. However, even then the treatment of those who are either homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts whether by birth or choice should be no different.

The definition if sin is subject to revelation from god, not generic predisposition so even in the religious sphere I am not sure how immutability of choice would actually alter anything.

[Stone holm]

I would agree that the immutability may have a place in the religious discussion. However, even then the treatment of those who are either homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts whether by birth or choice should be no different.

The definition if sin is subject to revelation from god, not generic predisposition so even in the religious sphere I am not sure how immutability of choice would actually alter anything.

Well the Church is not moving towards acceptance of homosexual acts, it already has moved towards accepting people who have acknowledged same sex attraction. I suspect, however, there are going to be different nuances in the acceptance of gays between someone who is clearly believed to be hardwired or so conditioned to being gay that as a practical matter it is not a choice, and the person who is gay because it is hip or they simply prefer the stereotypic gay lifestyle. There is some clear condemnation of effeminant males and those with unnatural affection. I think that many can think of brothers in the Church who seem very effeminate -- but that is not necessarily mean they are homosexual. I cannot imagine that the Church will ever be a completely comfortable environment for a person with SSA even if they are as chaste as anyone can possibly imagine.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Stone holm

[Bikeemikey]

Well the Church is not moving towards acceptance of homosexual acts, it already has moved towards accepting people who have acknowledged same sex attraction. I suspect, however, there are going to be different nuances in the acceptance of gays between someone who is clearly believed to be hardwired or so conditioned to being gay that as a practical matter it is not a choice, and the person who is gay because it is hip or they simply prefer the stereotypic gay lifestyle. There is some clear condemnation of effeminant males and those with unnatural affection. I think that many can think of brothers in the Church who seem very effeminate -- but that is not necessarily mean they are homosexual. I cannot imagine that the Church will ever be a completely comfortable environment for a person with SSA even if they are as chaste as anyone can possibly imagine.

Im still not convinced that their is a viable system for really implementing a treatment of homosexuals or policy toward homosexuals based on genetics vs choice. It seems it would far to difficult to function.

I think however, that part of the softening of the notion of homosexual sin (that is the migration for SSA as sin to acting on SSA as sin may have to do with the increased acceptance of the idea of a generic origin for SSA in some instances).

As for the last comment, the church not ever being a comfortable place for those with SSA... I hope we can move past that. I would also add that the church is not really a comfortable place for sexual attraction in general, same sex or opposite sex... Church and sex don't really seem to go hand in hand at all.

[gree0232]

Gree0232,

My position is not a false dilemma where I have stated either x or y must be true. I have simply stated what I believe to be reasonable grounds for legitimate govt. coercion (harm - that is violation of consent) and from that provided two superior alternatives to the current structure.

You believe the govt should be heavily invested in guiding and incentivizing a broad spectrum of moral choice - I do not. As such we will not see eye to eye on the subject. If is that simple.

This whole question on immutability vs. choice is redundant based on my framework. It has no bearing on the case... Only only this that matters is mutual consent.

Furthermore, your slippery slope concern regarding marriage to vegetables and children and some other of your examples are impossible - where there is no informed and legitimate consent there can be no relationship for the state to endorse... In fact... Where there is no consent there is crime. Children can not consent, laws already define this as the age of consent, and violation of this is criminal.

In my model of libertarian govt the state must treat all contracts between consenting adults equally. Preferencing some above others with out demonstrating harm runs contrary to the legitimate limitation of govt. coercion. At present contracts between gay couples do not provide health insurance benefits, social security benefits, military benefits, sometimes inheritance benefits, end of life decision making benefits - this creates substantial govt coercion. Even though I do not agree with the homosexual choice I more strongly object to this govt coercion.

In other words, you state that some marriages are fine and others are not ... the reasoning for these is left for others to discern. The ones you deem acceptable, unexplainable so, are obvious and prima facie, those that are not are simply dismissed as a slippery slop?

In short, is is exactlt that kind of emotional argumentation that I reject in this debate. The 'My opinion is wonderful' all those who disagree with me ... are silly and stupid.

Well brother, polygamists disagree with your assessment that their beliefs are ... fallacious. So do pedophiles like NAMBLA - simply because you dismiss their arguments, when they are using the same standards of evaluation as you do ... its either ALL or NOTHING - accept the ones that bikey dismisses - which then becomes something short of all ...

Well, that would be why its listed as a false dilemma,

The standards you use for adjudication of your opinion are just that ... and if the standard of judgement is merely what you deem popular or acceptable, then quite frankly you are merely asking others to submit themselves to your unexplainable judgement.

[gree0232]

I would agree that the immutability may have a place in the religious discussion. However, even then the treatment of those who are either homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts whether by birth or choice should be no different.

The definition if sin is subject to revelation from god, not generic predisposition so even in the religious sphere I am not sure how immutability of choice would actually alter anything.

In other words, we should respect homosexuality because ... why? Just because?

Well why not pedophilia then? Why not necrophilia?

All we apparently have to do is get someone to the state of 'normality' and suddenly our sexual choices no longer define our character and are no longer sin?

Whether by choice or birth - is adultery now to be tolerated? Promiscuity? Rape?

Of course not, correct? Well, why? Why should we accept the rationalization about one form of sexuality but not others? Is that not the fallacy of special pleading?

It goes right back to what I wrote earlier, we must have a system that tells some people "Yes" and other people "No". That system and set of standards, because it will become legal code, MUST be explainable.

Indeed, you appear to have no problem telling some people "Yes" and some people "No". However, you do appear to have difficulty establishing the reasoning behind those decisions.

What we do is neither choice nor natural ... therefore it doesn't matter. Brother, agency is an important part of our faith, it is an important part of our legal system, and the choices we make define and set the very course of our life. To simply wave away agency and responsibility the notion of consequence, is as powerful a argument of rationalization as I have ever seen - and to be fully and unequivocally rejected.

And bear in mind, by your standard, Sin defined merely by God alone, that a) we live in a secular society that will not accept such a standard, b) homosexuality is condemned in scripture ... its sin.

Edited May 14, 2013 by gree0232

[Stone holm]

My, my. I went back quite a ways in your posts and found no reference provided; in fact, I found no quote - just this sentence from your post #102: " I remember reading awhile back in an Ensign article that the Church never had a problem with racism and remembering that I almost choked." Of course, your statement here is inconsistent anyway; you say you had a quote (bolded) and then you say you no longer have the quote. Then you admit that the statement was qualified so as to be quite different than your initial "recollection". Now you regale us with something you'll also term as "quotes" from the Journal of Discourses, which are actually your paraphrases of what you think it says, and for which we have no further references. Then, to top it off, you carry on a congratulatory conversation with yourself for successfully identifying the church as racist, and not only that, inferring that it was actually malignant racism because our "bar is so low". And with that neat piece of intellectual exertion, you say that thus my bar is so low that I really have no idea what constitutes being anti-gay.

Thanks for sharing. It's been wonderful talking with you, but I really don't think you have anything cogent to add at this point. Have a nice evening.

Yeah not sure what happened to the post, I couldn't find it either -- possibly I turned of the iPad before it actually posted -- will look it up again and provide the full quote. Will provide the quotes from the Journal of Discourses -- I believe the BY quote is in volume 2, will get you the page.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Stone holm

[Bikeemikey]

In other words, you state that some marriages are fine and others are not ... the reasoning for these is left for others to discern. The ones you deem acceptable, unexplainable so, are obvious and prima facie, those that are not are simply dismissed as a slippery slop?

In short, is is exactlt that kind of emotional argumentation that I reject in this debate. The 'My opinion is wonderful' all those who disagree with me ... are silly and stupid.

Well brother, polygamists disagree with your assessment that their beliefs are ... fallacious. So do pedophiles like NAMBLA - simply because you dismiss their arguments, when they are using the same standards of evaluation as you do ... its either ALL or NOTHING - accept the ones that bikey dismisses - which then becomes something short of all ...

Well, that would be why its listed as a false dilemma,

The standards you use for adjudication of your opinion are just that ... and if the standard of judgement is merely what you deem popular or acceptable, then quite frankly you are merely asking others to submit themselves to your unexplainable judgement.

Hey there Gree0232:

So I am going to give it one more shot to explain the position I have on this matter... not because I have any interest in convincing you of its correctness, but because your rephrasing of my ideas show that you have not understood what I have been expressing.

From the beginning of this discussion I have simply, and consistently, claimed that there is a big difference to the role of govt and the role of religion, and that govt. has no place in the adjudicating of sin, though they have clear responsibility in areas relating to harm.

It is important to understand that I think there are two different kinds of tolerance that we talk of:

1. there is a tolerance that is an acceptance/approval (or non-acceptance/disapproval) of someones behavior

2. there is a tolerance that is an acceptance of someones right to their behavior but not the behavior itself.

I believe the role of reasonable govt is to act in the second sphere of tolerance... that is what principles of equal treatment under law are generally concerned with... the govt is not concerned with the content of our actions, simply whether we have the rights to those actions. Such rights to action are founded on the principles of consent and harm (that is harm with a narrow and specific meaning derived from the notion of consent).

The first sphere is more about religion... religion is concerned with the moral content of our actions. Whether or not we have the right to a certain action does not make it acceptable or approved... acceptance and approval of action is based on the moral content of the action itself, not whether we had the right to perform it.

As such, Govt must, and does, tolerate a far broader range of action and behavior that religion. And both institutions are correct in the different spheres of tolerance as these different institutions have fundamentally different purposes.

My position is not grounded in emotional considerations. It is grounded on the basic premise that agency and choice are sacred and agency and choice should be kept free from coercive relationships inherent in the asymmetrical power structures generated between Govt and Citizen.

My belief in the need to limit the coercive power influenced by the govt (especially on areas of private moral decision making) makes the selective incentivizing of some relationship contracts by the govt over others unacceptable. As such all "consensual and mutually agreed to relationships" should all receive the same incentives from the govt, or preferably, no incentives at all.

I have made no declaration that some marriages are fine and others are not. Nor have I made claims and provided no reasoning. There are many arguments against this libertarian conceptualization of govt and the proposals I have made to the question of SSM. The False Dilemma is not one of them. I am not asking anyone to submit to anything. I am explaining the rational and process I have developed (over a lot of time, study, prayer and thought) that produces the conclusions I have arrived at.

So that is really it. Many simply object to the idea that Govt should have a narrow and limited scope concerned only with citizens rights to action (based on the principle of agency and consent) and ignore the moral content of citizens actions in as much as they have the right to the action. My position of govt makes all actions that violate other consent and property rights illegal and all other acts permissible.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Im still not convinced that their is a viable system for really implementing a treatment of homosexuals or policy toward homosexuals based on genetics vs choice. It seems it would far to difficult to function.

I think however, that part of the softening of the notion of homosexual sin (that is the migration for SSA as sin to acting on SSA as sin may have to do with the increased acceptance of the idea of a generic origin for SSA in some instances).

As for the last comment, the church not ever being a comfortable place for those with SSA... I hope we can move past that. I would also add that the church is not really a comfortable place for sexual attraction in general, same sex or opposite sex... Church and sex don't really seem to go hand in hand at all.

What I meant by that is that besides the Atonement, the central doctrines of the Church revolve around the Temple sealing and the concept of spiritual offspring of eternal couples. With that as a key doctrine and the unlikelihood that the Church is ever going to start sealing gay couples that leaves the gay member just kind of out there -- think how many talks we have in Church about eternal families and the Temple, etc. etc. Many singles feel isolated and out of the mainstream, can't imagine what it would be like to not only be single -- but know that is likely to be a permanent condition for this life and wonder what God is going to do to "fix" you so you can be exalted in the next.

[Bikeemikey]

1. In other words, we should respect homosexuality because ... why? Just because?

2. Well why not pedophilia then? Why not necrophilia?

3. All we apparently have to do is get someone to the state of 'normality' and suddenly our sexual choices no longer define our character and are no longer sin?

4. Whether by choice or birth - is adultery now to be tolerated? Promiscuity? Rape?

5. Of course not, correct? Well, why? Why should we accept the rationalization about one form of sexuality but not others? Is that not the fallacy of special pleading?

6. It goes right back to what I wrote earlier, we must have a system that tells some people "Yes" and other people "No". That system and set of standards, because it will become legal code, MUST be explainable.

7. Indeed, you appear to have no problem telling some people "Yes" and some people "No". However, you do appear to have difficulty establishing the reasoning behind those decisions.

8. What we do is neither choice nor natural ... therefore it doesn't matter. Brother, agency is an important part of our faith, it is an important part of our legal system, and the choices we make define and set the very course of our life. To simply wave away agency and responsibility the notion of consequence, is as powerful a argument of rationalization as I have ever seen - and to be fully and unequivocally rejected.

9. And bear in mind, by your standard, Sin defined merely by God alone, that a) we live in a secular society that will not accept such a standard, b) homosexuality is condemned in scripture ... its sin.

So to answer your quesitons above in light of the longer post I just made outlining my position. I have numbered my responses to your questions:

1. Homosexuality should be tolerated by the govt (using respect and tolerate as roughly the same meaning between the two posts) on the grounds that it is the consenting choice or action between informed and consenting parties. So it should be respected and tolerated because all choice and use of agency that does not violate the consent of others should be respected by govt. Religions on the other hand do not need to respect or tolerate it if they find it morally wrong.

2. Children can not consent, nor can dead bodies, there for any such sexual actions towards either party do not need to be tolerated by either govt or religion. In fact, the violation of consent at the govt level is legal and results in justifiable negative incentive (punishment).

3. I disagree with this statement both for its content and as a depiction of something by position would agree with. As I have already stated. Govt has nothing to do with sin so that which is tolerated at a govt. level can still be sin and un-tolerated in a religious context. Furthermore, all our choices define our character which is one of the reasons any coercive act by an entity like Govt must be viewed with extreme concern... Govt can shape and define our character.

4. Lets start with Rape: this is clearly a violation of consent and is not tolerated by govt. Nor by religions (excluding extremist cults from that term). Now to adultery and Promiscuity... this gets us into ideas of contractual obligation (another area the govt can have legitimate grounds for enforcement as contracts can only be entered into by informed consenting adults). In the case of promiscuity & adultery... if all parties know what is happening and are adults then the govt must tolerate it as consent is present. That does not mean that there is a reduced liability to obligation to the consequences of such sexual escapades. In the case where parties are not all informed and have not been able to provide consent the govt. must tolerate the sexual acts but will often find in favor of the aggrieved party, that is the betrayed party that did not provide consent. This is a good reason to have contractual expectations around formal relationships... adults are also expected to have reasonable predictive capacity regarding what their actions may lead to. That is why mean can be considered legally responsible for children fathered during one night stands. This is all consistent with a Libertarian framework of limited govt. (Agents can be held responsible to obligations arising from both formal contracts and foreseeable outcomes of actions.)

5. Nope not a fallacy of special pleading... all sexual relationships between consenting parties should be tolerated by the govt.

6. Yes, we do need a system to tell people yes and no... most of that system should be religion, with a very narrow sphere of it managed by govt.

7. Pretty sure I have covered this by now. Let me know if not.

8. My entire position is built or the sacredness of agency and choice. All of our choices produce direct accountability and consequence. Only those choices that run contrary to principles of consent should receive consequence from the govt. The rest should be left to the god to judge (they are the sphere of religion, not govt).

9. You are correct that I believe sin is defined by God alone, and that religion on earth is a legitimate force for the administration of judgement and teaching regarding sin. Our govts are not lead by God or prophets and do not claim to have a religious mandate. As such, the administration of the broader moral question of sin is not the jurisdiction of govt. A secular society does not need to accept my definition of sin. Nor do we need to use govt as a tool to force a secular world to comply with my religious definition of sin. The only thing the secular world needs to do is live by the govt expectation of respect for agency and consent.

[Bikeemikey]

What I meant by that is that besides the Atonement, the central doctrines of the Church revolve around the Temple sealing and the concept of spiritual offspring of eternal couples. With that as a key doctrine and the unlikelihood that the Church is ever going to start sealing gay couples that leaves the gay member just kind of out there -- think how many talks we have in Church about eternal families and the Temple, etc. etc. Many singles feel isolated and out of the mainstream, can't imagine what it would be like to not only be single -- but know that is likely to be a permanent condition for this life and wonder what God is going to do to "fix" you so you can be exalted in the next.

Yeah. That will always be an issue, unless that changes.

[Stone holm]

Yeah not sure what happened to the post, I couldn't find it either -- possibly I turned of the iPad before it actually posted -- will look it up again and provide the full quote. Will provide the quotes from the Journal of Discourses -- I believe the BY quote is in volume 2, will get you the page.

"No More Srangers" Elder Alexander Morrison, "How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations." Here is what BY said as it appears in Vol. 2, page 184 of the Journal of Discourses. "The seed of Ham , which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a "servant of servants" to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it. These are my views on slavery. .... The blacks should be used like servants, and not like brutes, but they must serve."

[wenglund]

Your proposed logical fallacy is simply a fallacy.

I am for govt using the principle of narrow moral judgement (harm) when generating legislative and coercive policy and when using incentives.

As such... I see two reasonable solutions that are both superior to the current US norm:

1. Get out of the marriage business or

2. Treat all relationship contracts the same (preferably with no incentive related to the relationship it self).

As such I can coherently argue for either the expansion of govt to SSM or the retraction of govt from all marriage from the same originating principle.

My comment wasn't in regards to the supposed "reasonableness" of the two so-called "solutions," but that they conflict, and since they conflict, one cannot logically argue for both simultaneously. You either believe one way, or the other. So, you are mistaken.

It appears that since you claim to be on the fence about the government getting out of the marriage business (though "getting out" is all, or predominately, I recall you arguing with me), your true position seems to be pro SSM. I suspected as much, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Going forward, I will know better.

Also, I never said I hadn't heard any libertarian arguments for SSM... I said I had heard no coherent ones.

I know, which is why I included the word "coherent" in my response to you.

I don't find your arguments coherent (though I don't see them as libertarian either).

I don't find you to be a very good judge of my arguments, let alone whether they are moderately libertarian or not. So, no problem.

Wade, you strike me more as a conservative moralist masquerading as a libertarian. That's fine by me and is not a criticism...

It is also demonstrably incorrect, so no problems.

I just haven't seen anything in your arguments to suggest a real libertarian underpinning.

I am not convinced you are capable of correctly seeing such things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[gree0232]

So to answer your quesitons above in light of the longer post I just made outlining my position. I have numbered my responses to your questions:

1. Homosexuality should be tolerated by the govt (using respect and tolerate as roughly the same meaning between the two posts) on the grounds that it is the consenting choice or action between informed and consenting parties. So it should be respected and tolerated because all choice and use of agency that does not violate the consent of others should be respected by govt. Religions on the other hand do not need to respect or tolerate it if they find it morally wrong.

2. Children can not consent, nor can dead bodies, there for any such sexual actions towards either party do not need to be tolerated by either govt or religion. In fact, the violation of consent at the govt level is legal and results in justifiable negative incentive (punishment).

3. I disagree with this statement both for its content and as a depiction of something by position would agree with. As I have already stated. Govt has nothing to do with sin so that which is tolerated at a govt. level can still be sin and un-tolerated in a religious context. Furthermore, all our choices define our character which is one of the reasons any coercive act by an entity like Govt must be viewed with extreme concern... Govt can shape and define our character.

4. Lets start with Rape: this is clearly a violation of consent and is not tolerated by govt. Nor by religions (excluding extremist cults from that term). Now to adultery and Promiscuity... this gets us into ideas of contractual obligation (another area the govt can have legitimate grounds for enforcement as contracts can only be entered into by informed consenting adults). In the case of promiscuity & adultery... if all parties know what is happening and are adults then the govt must tolerate it as consent is present. That does not mean that there is a reduced liability to obligation to the consequences of such sexual escapades. In the case where parties are not all informed and have not been able to provide consent the govt. must tolerate the sexual acts but will often find in favor of the aggrieved party, that is the betrayed party that did not provide consent. This is a good reason to have contractual expectations around formal relationships... adults are also expected to have reasonable predictive capacity regarding what their actions may lead to. That is why mean can be considered legally responsible for children fathered during one night stands. This is all consistent with a Libertarian framework of limited govt. (Agents can be held responsible to obligations arising from both formal contracts and foreseeable outcomes of actions.)

5. Nope not a fallacy of special pleading... all sexual relationships between consenting parties should be tolerated by the govt.

6. Yes, we do need a system to tell people yes and no... most of that system should be religion, with a very narrow sphere of it managed by govt.

7. Pretty sure I have covered this by now. Let me know if not.

8. My entire position is built or the sacredness of agency and choice. All of our choices produce direct accountability and consequence. Only those choices that run contrary to principles of consent should receive consequence from the govt. The rest should be left to the god to judge (they are the sphere of religion, not govt).

9. You are correct that I believe sin is defined by God alone, and that religion on earth is a legitimate force for the administration of judgement and teaching regarding sin. Our govts are not lead by God or prophets and do not claim to have a religious mandate. As such, the administration of the broader moral question of sin is not the jurisdiction of govt. A secular society does not need to accept my definition of sin. Nor do we need to use govt as a tool to force a secular world to comply with my religious definition of sin. The only thing the secular world needs to do is live by the govt expectation of respect for agency and consent.

So, just to clarify, the sole basis of law should be that consenting adults are involved? So, two people decide to use opium, it's fine? A person decides to commit suicide, it's fine? Government need no have programs to dissuade this activity? If two consenting adults want to build a nuclear device, for recreation, that is fine as well?

And again, in a larger sense, homosexuality has been reduced to the stereotypical star crossed lovers, but is that the reality of the homosexual community? What about those flesh houses in Barcelona? What about the anonymous sex that was spilling into the streets? That takes place in parks? That creates situations of extraordinary promiscuity? Is this not also part of the homosexual community? And does government have to turn a blind eye, the proverbial wink and a nod, a ... Advocate this kind of behavior?

Because sometimes it ALSO leads to a stable committed relationship?

Or does government have the ability the recognize that, for the sake of our society, that it should create policies that make it easier for adults to engage in heterosexual marriage and raise children? It's about advocacy ... And in a legal sense, you cannot divorce justice from morality can you?