Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

[Mystery Meat]

I don't think Wade is just sayint this for the heck of it. Consider this.

 

 

What about them is confused, misdirected, and inane? Can you answer those questions? It appeared that you just deflected his arguments on the basis that "It still sounded like separation to me". You really didn't even engage in what he said.

 

 

I've engaged, at length, with Wade in previous threads.

 

But, I don't really see a need to answer those questions since I don't see striking down Amendment 3 as "confused, misdirected, and inane".  Restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples is a violation of the 14th amendment.  Judge after judge after judge has confirmed that and there are numerous court rulings as evidence.

 

Wade disagrees for reasons that I have explored with him and understand.

 

How about we end the nonsense and fighting between everybody in our country (seemingly) and get the government out of the marriage business. Civil unions for one and all. Any two people could enter a civil union and be entitled to the same benefits regardless of orientation or gender. Problem solved. There is no longer an equal protection issue. Everyone is the same under the law. 

[rockpond]

How about we end the nonsense and fighting between everybody in our country (seemingly) and get the government out of the marriage business. Civil unions for one and all. Any two people could enter a civil union and be entitled to the same benefits regardless of orientation or gender. Problem solved. There is no longer an equal protection issue. Everyone is the same under the law. 

 

I agree with that approach but don't see it happening.  And I don't think that Wade wants that approach because, as far as I can tell, he wants heterosexual couples to have favorable treatment because they better serve the interests of the state.

[Mystery Meat]

I agree with that approach but don't see it happening.  And I don't think that Wade wants that approach because, as far as I can tell, he wants heterosexual couples to have favorable treatment because they better serve the interests of the state.

 

I don' think it will happen either. It would be too easy first. Second, it would eliminate conflict, which is something that power brokers thrive on (divide and conquer). Third, people on either side of the issue are simply unwilling to compromise. My more conservative friends don't like it because it gives the "gays" more leg to stand on. My liberal friends have an even more passionate response, a few going as far a few months ago told me that they wouldn't be happy until every conservative had to acknowledge gays and lesbians marriages. For them it was a "neener, neener" moment. 

 

To be fair to Wade, however, based on one of his above posts he doesn't seem to be opposed to the idea of giving gays and lesbians the same tax benefits and other rights (inheritance laws for example) afforded to heterosexual couples. If I am wrong he can correct me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Not exactly. It says, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

 

This statement is ambiguous enough that all three candidates running for attorney general in Utah urged Utah voters to reject the amendment (they felt it could even nullify current common law marriages in Utah). Regardless how you feel it should be interpreted, it contradicts your statement that the amendment "simply defines marriage as consisting 'only of the legal union between a man and a woman.'"

 

I am familiar with the district court and subsequent rulings on Hollingsworth v. Perry, and I am aware of this extra-constitutional and inane argument that was borrowed from the Cal. Supreme Court ruling on Prop 22.

Just because you call something extra-constitutional and inane does not make it so.

 

However, the constitutions (California or U.S.) do not contain a single clause or amendment that speaks explicitly or implicitly to the nebulous and unmeasurable notion a "social meaning," let alone in relation to defining legal terms. This argument was manufactured out of whole cloth. It is not a valid constitutional test.

You could make a similar argument about the 14th amendment as it applies to Brown v. Board of Education. Segregated schools were common when the 14th amendment passed and it is clear from the historical record that the 14th amendment was not meant to desegregate schools. The amendment doesn't mention things like feelings of social inferiority or other intangibles, but the supreme court thought those things relevant. From Brown:

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

So even though the schools might have been exactly equal in all physical and tangible respects, the court found that segregation was still illegal.

Further down we read:

We come then to the question presented: does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

<snip>

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.

Can you think of single legal definition, besides the term "marriage," that has be challenged on the basis of disparate social meaning? I can't, and for good reason. "Social meaning" is the purview of society, not the courts.

No (at least not right now). Again, as noted in Brown v. Board of education, the courts have considered things akin to "social meaning"

 

For that matter, does the term "gay marriage" have equal social meaning to "traditional marriage?" It doesn't to me. All the term "gay marriage" has done, in my estimation, is mangle the definition and diminish the social meaningfulness of the term "marriage," without equalizing it across the new board. If not, does this mean that the term "traditional marriage" should now be defined to include "gay marriage?"

 

Where does the insanity end?

 

You keep using words like mangle and insanity. Do you use such words when people use marriage as a metaphor? When you first heard of gay marriage, did someone have to explain for you exactly what they meant or was it inherently obvious to you? I think for most people it is inherently obvious and is not a mangling at all.

 

Consider the implication of how this could play out in relation to other legal definitions. For example, if it were suggested that the legal term "heterosexual" has greater social meaning than "homosexual," would this be grounds to strike down laws defining heterosexuals as opposite-sex relationships? Would it be ground to change the meaning of "heterosexual" to include homosexual relations?

Wow you really had to stretch there. Aside from marriage can you think of any real life examples instead of the absurd? Have you actually heard anyone suggesting any of these things? If not, might suggest that the implication of how this plays out is inconsequential.

 

It wouldn't make sense, would it?

 

Well, principally, the same holds true for the legal definition of the term "marriage."

No it doesn't. Just one more tweak in a long line of tweaks in our legal defintion of marriage. Edited January 22, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[hoo rider]

Actually it does. It says no other types of unions can be given similar benefits of marriage.

 

I think most supporters of gay marriage would disagree with this point. It's not just about the tax benefits. It's the relegation by the state to a second class citizenship / relationship. In Hollingsworth_v._Perry the court found that: "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States."

 

 

Not exactly. It says, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

 

In other words, no other kinds of relationships can be called or treated as "marriages." (Utah is a common law state, and this provision simply prevents non-heterosexual relationships from being treated as common law marriages. The importance here is that if Amendment 3 is ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, and gay marriages are made legal, then gay relationships that aren't formally married, may still be treated as marriages under common law.)

 

This doesn't prevent the legalization of domestic partnership or civil unions, nor does it restrict various familial privileges and benefits from being extended to other kinds of relationships.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with you here.  The words "may be...given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" do prohibit a civil union from being given the same privileges and benefits as a marriage.  According to the Utah amendment, a civil union may not have the same legal effect as a marriage.

 

BTW - Everything I have seen from church leaders is that the church is also against same sex civil unions.  For example:

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.” 

 

 

Emphasis added by me.  Quote available at:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

In my view, the argument that we're just trying to maintain the traditional (or historical) definition of marriage isn't the argument the church is making.  The church is arguing that same sex marriage is identical to same sex civil unions and that both are not appropriate.  

[wenglund]

And I don't think that Wade wants that approach because, as far as I can tell, he wants heterosexual couples to have favorable treatment because they better serve the interests of the state.

 

Not quite. As explained in great length to you in the past, it is not so much a matter of preferential treatment as it is a matter of relevance. The state has a vested interest in minimizing irresponsible and illegitimate procreation. Since irresponsible and illegitimate procreation is a factor for heterosexual couples, but it is irrelevant to homosexual couples, the state interest in this regard only applies to heterosexual couples. And, since this state interest is best realized through marriage, the state does have an interest in sanctioning and promoting marriage (as traditionally defined), though the same interest isn't relevant to legitimizing homosexual relationships (civil unions or domestic partnerships).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Not quite. As explained in great length to you in the past, it is not so much a matter of preferential treatment as it is a matter of relevance. The state has a vested interest in minimizing irresponsible and illegitimate procreation. Since irresponsible and illegitimate procreation is a factor for heterosexual couples, but it is irrelevant to homosexual couples, the state interest in this regard only applies to heterosexual couples. And, since this state interest is best realized through marriage, the state does have an interest in sanctioning and promoting marriage (as traditionally defined), though the same interest isn't relevant to legitimizing homosexual relationships (civil unions or domestic partnerships).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yup, pretty much what I said.  Sorry to have reduced your opinion to a single sentence, I know that's not your style.

[wenglund]

 This statement is ambiguous enough that all three candidates running for attorney general in Utah urged Utah voters to reject the amendment (they felt it could even nullify current common law marriages in Utah). Regardless how you feel it should be interpreted, it contradicts your statement that the amendment "simply defines marriage as consisting 'only of the legal union between a man and a woman.'"

 

 

Unlike with you, my interpretation isn't a product of how I "feel," but how I reason. My reasoning was plausible, though you are free to disagree.

 

[Edit: upon further research, it appears that argument formally presented in favor of the Amendment did include "3. Prevent the creation of 'counterfeit marriages', such as civil unions." (See HERE) So, I was mistaken. I am not in favor of preventing civil unions and the like, though I would vote against them for reasons previously stated.]

 

Whether the three candidate were against the amendment or not out of concern about nullifying common law marriages, the Amendment has been in force for nearly a decade, and Utah continues to recognize common law marriage. So, their predictions were incorrect.

 

 

 

Just because you call something extra-constitutional and inane does not make it so.

 

Had I only called something those thing, and not gone one step further to rationally demonstrate it, then you4r comment may have some relevance. I went further, and so it doesn't.

 

 

You could make a similar argument about the 14th amendment as it applies to Brown v. Board of Education. Segregated schools were common when the 14th amendment passed and it is clear from the historical record that the 14th amendment was not meant to desegregate schools. The amendment doesn't mention things like feelings of social inferiority or other intangibles, but the supreme court thought those things relevant. From Brown:

So even though the schools might have been exactly equal in all physical and tangible respects, the court found that segregation was still illegal.

 

History has proven Brown v BOE to be one of the least sensible rulings in court history. It took less than a year for both blacks and whites to recognize that desegregation through busing created more problems than it solved. There is a reason you don't hear any more, or haven't for decades, about busing, even though schools are still relatively segregated. It also gave rise to the extra-constitutional and discriminatory rules on scrutiny that have since been warped beyond recognition, which got us into the current mess we are in with mangling the definition of marriage. And, it opened the floodgates to judicial fiat and abuse of the separation of powers through legislating from the bench.

 

 

You keep using words like mangle and insanity. Do you use such words when people use marriage as a metaphor?

 

No, because there is an important distinction between legal definitions and metaphors.

 

 

 

When you first heard of gay marriage, did someone have to explain for you exactly what they meant or was it inherently obvious to you? I think for most people it is inherently obvious and is not a mangling at all.

 

When the proposition of legalizing homosexual relationship first hit the public scene back in the late 70s and early 80's, the notion of "gay marriage" generally and rightly struck people as oxymoronic. It is for this reason that other terms were proffered instead that were less absurd--like civil unions and domestic partnerships.

 

 

Wow you really had to stretch there. Aside from marriage can you think of any real life examples instead of the absurd? Have you actually heard anyone suggesting any of these things? If not, might suggest that the implication of how this plays out is inconsequential.

 

Again, when the movement got under way to legalize homosexual relationships, the mention of "gay marriage" was no less a stretch. Nevertheless, whether the example I gave earlier is a stretch or not, the principle still applies. It is nonsensical to deem a legal definition unconstitutional based on some immeasurable and impertinent notion of "social meaning." Might as well base constitutionality on other matters of taste and personal opinion like whether the law is "cool" or "gnarly"

 

 

Just one more tweak in a long line of tweaks in our legal defintion of marriage.

 

I think you are confusing "legal definition" with "regulations." While various and specific marital regulations have come and gone, the legal definition has remained essentially unchanged for centuries if not millennium, that is until it was was mangled in recent times.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 23, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I don't agree with you here.  The words "may be...given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" do prohibit a civil union from being given the same privileges and benefits as a marriage.  According to the Utah amendment, a civil union may not have the same legal effect as a marriage.

 

As indicated in my edit to the post above, upon further research it appears that arguments formally presented in favor of the Amendment did include "3. Prevent the creation of 'counterfeit marriages', such as civil unions." (See HERE) So, I was mistaken.

 

BTW - Everything I have seen from church leaders is that the church is also against same sex civil unions.  For example:

 

Emphasis added by me.  Quote available at:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

I, too, am against gay civil unions or the like, though I don't agree with preventing them through constitutional amendment. If the state decides it is in the states interest to legalize homosexual relationships through civil unions and the like, then they should be at liberty to do so, whether I agree or not.

 

In my view, the argument that we're just trying to maintain the traditional (or historical) definition of marriage isn't the argument the church is making.  The church is arguing that same sex marriage is identical to same sex civil unions and that both are not appropriate.

 

The arguments on this broad issue are many and multifaceted. In this thread, I am speaking specifically to arguments regarding the constitutionality of of laws defining marriage. It is easy to confuse general arguments the Church has made with the specific legal arguments I am speaking to.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

DELETED

Edited January 23, 2014 by mormonnewb

[nebula]

The threat to tax exempt status seems like weak ground to stand on in terms of taking an active stance against same sex marriage, to me.

 

LDS people believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin. 

 

They also believe that smoking, having pre-marital sex, and valuing a football game above God are all sins...

 

 

It is easier to loudly, actively denounce a sin when it is not one you struggle with and not one that is prevalent in your world.

 

 

Legal implications aside, I think the bottom line is that Christians could do a much better job of loving their homosexual neighbors. Are we not all sinners?

Thank you. The level of intolerance and bitterness in this particular debate always surprises me, coming as it does from people who have devoted their lives to Christ. It is possible to disagree without making the other side the enemy.

[nebula]

 

For that matter, does the term "gay marriage" have equal social meaning to "traditional marriage?" It doesn't to me. All the term "gay marriage" has done, in my estimation, is mangle the definition and diminish the social meaningfulness of the term "marriage," without equalizing it across the new board. If not, does this mean that the term "traditional marriage" should now be defined to include "gay marriage?"

 

Considering that the term "traditional marriage" would currently apply to my union with a stranger I've just met (provided he's male), or my union with an abusive man or with a man who doesn't love me, I would argue that expanding the definition to include homosexual couples does absolutely no measurable damage to the term. Traditional marriage by its current legal definition holds no value beyond the rights its legality entails. The virtue of marriage, the thing you're trying to protect, gains its power from another source.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

... my interpretation isn't a product of how I "feel," but how I reason.

My apologies for the dig. 

History has proven Brown v BOE to be one of the least sensible rulings in court history. It took less than a year for both blacks and whites to recognize that desegregation through busing created more problems than it solved. There is a reason you don't hear any more, or haven't for decades, about busing, even though schools are still relatively segregated. It also gave rise to the extra-constitutional and discriminatory rules on scrutiny that have since been warped beyond recognition, which got us into the current mess we are in with mangling the definition of marriage. And, it opened the floodgates to judicial fiat and abuse of the separation of powers through legislating from the bench.

I will just say that I profoundly disagree.

[Stone holm]

Considering that the term "traditional marriage" would currently apply to my union with a stranger I've just met (provided he's male), or my union with an abusive man or with a man who doesn't love me, I would argue that expanding the definition to include homosexual couples does absolutely no measurable damage to the term. Traditional marriage by its current legal definition holds no value beyond the rights its legality entails. The virtue of marriage, the thing you're trying to protect, gains its power from another source.

You absolutely nailed it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You absolutely nailed it.

BUt she missed Wade's points which leads me to believe you did too. So she didn't absolutely nail it. What she said is irrelevant.

[Alan]

I think the Bob Jones case is exhibit A as to why members should be concerned about religious freedom and what the government can and will do to institutions that fall out of governmental favor. 

Let's stipulate that I do NOT agree with Bob Jones U and the policy they had about interracial dating. But that's not the point. The point is that the IRS decided that even though they were a legitimate university, their policy offended society and the government, and they should lose their tax-exempt status. 

If you don't think that gay activists have their eye on the tax-exempt status of the church, then you are naive. It's not only the deductible status of contributions of members, it's the property tax. What is the value of the Los Angeles Temple complex? It's an entire city block of Westwood, one of the most expensive areas of LA. Same with any of the temples in urban areas, and the aggregate of our chapels and their property. 

And it's not just the LDS church. The property of the Catholic church and other conservative churches is MUCH larger.

I always remember the worlds of Daniel Webster: "The power to tax is the power to destroy". And yes, the goal of some (not all) of our enemies is the destruction, fiscal and otherwise, of any institution that does not make gay relationships the moral equivalent of man/woman marriage. They would need to speak to their motives, but they seem to run the gamut from revenge for past slights to the understandable and innate need not to feel immoral.

 

Joining this thread late, read this far and feel I should comment.

What has money got to do with it? If the church loses tax-exempt status I would see that as a good thing. We are too "plugged-in" to Babylon in my view and need to extracate ourselves.

For this reason I have quit seeking tax relief on my tithing and other contributions to the church.

I would also favour the disincorporation of the church. The church is subject to corporate law in the US because it is actually The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and therefore not really, legally, a church. "Church" means "ecclesia" which amounts to "the congregation of believers"; i.e. us the people. We are not a corporate entity and should have nothing to do with government irrespective of whether or not it is financially advantageous, in my view.

[nebula]

BUt she missed Wade's points which leads me to believe you did too. So she didn't absolutely nail it. What she said is irrelevant.

I apologize if I missed something vital. My response was aimed less at Wade's argument specifically than at the idea that the legal definition of marriage holds some purity which would be tainted if expanded to include homosexual couples. An even more traditional marriage would be one in which the woman is considered an object to possess, a union driven not by love but by the desire to obtain wealth, power, and status-- but I don't see many advocating the protection of this kind of marrage. In this day and age, it would be outrageous to speak of women as being any less deserving of rights than men. Eventually-- soon!-- the same will be said of all groups.

[california boy]

Considering that the term "traditional marriage" would currently apply to my union with a stranger I've just met (provided he's male), or my union with an abusive man or with a man who doesn't love me, I would argue that expanding the definition to include homosexual couples does absolutely no measurable damage to the term. Traditional marriage by its current legal definition holds no value beyond the rights its legality entails. The virtue of marriage, the thing you're trying to protect, gains its power from another source.

 

I also agree with you.  Should not the church and it's members be known for emulating the life and teachings of Christ?  When I read the scriptures, the Christ that emerges for me is someone who loved everyone, ate with sinners, rebuked those that took it upon themselves to be the judge and executioners of other people's sins.  Taught us to go out of our way to care and feed those that were reviled by others in society for who they married.  Christ never had great things to say about those who placed themselves above others that gave thanks to God that they were not like those other sinners.

 

If I could start a thread, I would ask the question "How does the church and it's members fulfill this scripture?"

 

Matthew 5:14-16

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

 

 

Is Christ's vision fulfilled by the church and its members fixating on not allowing others to marry? Is it fulfilled by fixating on other people's sins?  Is it fulfilled by making gays feel unwelcome to participate in the church unless they are celibate?  Why are there endless threads about this one sin?  Is it because others that are not struggling with this sin can safely attack that particular sin since it is one they are not likely to be guilty of?  Is it the smell of blood that others in the pack will attack with them?  Does the church obsess with other sins in the public square of politics?  Do we get the passion of Wade, Whitlock , Buzzard,  Mola Ram and others concerning other sins?  When one group is consistently attacked, it does seem very targeted.  Your question of why is one I would like to have answered, though I doubt any of these passionate attackers will tell us why they have such a fixation on gays.

[wenglund]

Thank you. The level of intolerance and bitterness in this particular debate always surprises me, coming as it does from people who have devoted their lives to Christ. It is possible to disagree without making the other side the enemy.

 

What amazes me is how many people are fooled by the canard that mere attempts by people to preserve the definition of marriage somehow renders those people intolerant and bitter, It makes me wonder if the canard is an ironic projection. Who knows?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Considering that the term "traditional marriage" would currently apply to my union with a stranger I've just met (provided he's male), or my union with an abusive man or with a man who doesn't love me, I would argue that expanding the definition to include homosexual couples does absolutely no measurable damage to the term. Traditional marriage by its current legal definition holds no value beyond the rights its legality entails. The virtue of marriage, the thing you're trying to protect, gains its power from another source.

 

I am not sure what exactly you mean by value and virtue, or what exactly are your points of reference.

 

Yes, the term "traditional marriage" would accurately apply to legal marriages between male and female strangers and/or abusive or un-loving heterosexual couples. So?

 

The traditional definition of "marriage" doesn't mention qualitative variables like human character and acquaintance and romantic disposition. It simply speaks quantitatively to fixed elements: numbers and gender composition and in a way, age. Thus, the definition isn't altered in the least by the existence of qualitative variables within the set of "traditional marriage."

 

Whereas, on the other hand, the definition is radically altered by changing the quantitative and fixed elements of the definition, which is precisely what legalizing "gay marriage" does.

 

Why people don't get this seemingly obvious point, is a mystery to me.

 

I will speak to the question of plausible changes in social meaningfulness of "marriage" (not to be confused with the definitional meaning of marriage) when I get a moment.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I am not sure what exactly you mean by value and virtue, or what exactly are your points of reference.

 

Yes, the term "traditional marriage" would accurately apply to legal marriages between male and female strangers and/or abusive or un-loving heterosexual couples. So?

 

The traditional definition of "marriage" doesn't mention qualitative variables like human character and acquaintance and romantic disposition. It simply speaks quantitatively to fixed elements: numbers and gender composition and in a way, age. Thus, the definition isn't altered in the least by the existence of qualitative variables within the set of "traditional marriage."

 

Whereas, on the other hand, the definition is radically altered by changing the quantitative and fixed elements of the definition, which is precisely what legalizing "gay marriage" does.

 

Why people don't get this seemingly obvious point, is a mystery to me.

 

I do GET the point you are making, I just disagree.  Marriage to me is not defined by the genders of the participants.  It is defined by the love and commitment that they are willing to give to one another and, in a religious sense, the commitment that they will also make to God.

[Buzzard]

I also agree with you.  Should not the church and it's members be known for emulating the life and teachings of Christ?  When I read the scriptures, the Christ that emerges for me is someone who loved everyone, ate with sinners, rebuked those that took it upon themselves to be the judge and executioners of other people's sins.  Taught us to go out of our way to care and feed those that were reviled by others in society for who they married.  Christ never had great things to say about those who placed themselves above others that gave thanks to God that they were not like those other sinners.

 

If I could start a thread, I would ask the question "How does the church and it's members fulfill this scripture?"

 

 

Is Christ's vision fulfilled by the church and its members fixating on not allowing others to marry? Is it fulfilled by fixating on other people's sins?  Is it fulfilled by making gays feel unwelcome to participate in the church unless they are celibate?  Why are there endless threads about this one sin?  Is it because others that are not struggling with this sin can safely attack that particular sin since it is one they are not likely to be guilty of?  Is it the smell of blood that others in the pack will attack with them?  Does the church obsess with other sins in the public square of politics?  Do we get the passion of Wade, Whitlock , Buzzard,  Mola Ram and others concerning other sins?  When one group is consistently attacked, it does seem very targeted.  Your question of why is one I would like to have answered, though I doubt any of these passionate attackers will tell us why they have such a fixation on gays.

I cannot speak for others, but you asked, though I pretty much answered the question with my last post on religious freedom over on the "In the News" section. I would say that:

-I don't wander around all day thinking about gays. But this sin is having a current impact on public policy. Thus, it is the sin that society is talking about right now. 

-A lot of my "passion" is defensive. I have not had anyone accuse me of being bigoted towards adulterers, thieves, or other sinners. But if I do not toe the gay line about how there is no difference between marriage and gay relationships, I have been called all kinds of names and told that my opinion is of no import, and that I have no place in civilized society. Secular gays and their allies do not want acceptance of marriage, they want gay sexual activity and relationships embraced as normal, with real world consequences for those who disagree. 

-The brethren have commented on this issue, and asked for support of the membership. I support the leadership of the church. Since they have asked us to speak up, why should I be silent?

-I agree that Love towards our fellow man is an important principle of the gospel. However, love has never meant acceptance of sin. Christ ate with sinners and publicans, but also admonished them to sin no more. In fact, that admonishment was a demonstration of his love for them. It meant that he was concerned not only for their current happiness, but for their eternal happiness, as we should be.

-If you think that I hold myself blameless before God, think again. I have, as do we all, issues and sins that I am working out with fear and trembling before him. But none of them would require a church court, as do all serious sexual sin. So at the risk of coming across as arrogant (which I am not), in the eye of the church, sexual sins, because of their eternal effect on us in regards to the Plan of Salvation, are a bigger deal than others. if this were not the case, why is our church membership in jeopardy with some sins, and not with others?

[Stone holm]

Joining this thread late, read this far and feel I should comment.

What has money got to do with it? If the church loses tax-exempt status I would see that as a good thing. We are too "plugged-in" to Babylon in my view and need to extracate ourselves.

For this reason I have quit seeking tax relief on my tithing and other contributions to the church.

I would also favour the disincorporation of the church. The church is subject to corporate law in the US because it is actually The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and therefore not really, legally, a church. "Church" means "ecclesia" which amounts to "the congregation of believers"; i.e. us the people. We are not a corporate entity and should have nothing to do with government irrespective of whether or not it is financially advantageous, in my view.

Although this argument gets floated out from time to time, it's really faux law. Churches can be incorporated and that does not affect their status as such. Not being incorporated in the past has caused issues sorting out what was the Church's property and what was the Prophets when the Prophet died. It is good to keep the entanglement to a minimum, and in fact that is one of the First Amendment Establishment Clause tests.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I do GET the point you are making, I just disagree.  Marriage to me is not defined by the genders of the participants.  It is defined by the love and commitment that they are willing to give to one another and, in a religious sense, the commitment that they will also make to God.

But that is not a definition of marriage esp tradtional marriage. A commitment based on feelings and what they want to give is not what defines a marraige. Though those are part of it. Essentially what you are doing is taking a " I get that marriage was defined this way for years and I don't like it so I am going to change it" attitude. I am confident this is not the way things are done and seem to be a new trend with people.   

 

I don't like that fact that a dogs tail is called a tail. I don't like that definition. It would be better to define a dogs tail so we could call it a leg. Thus a dog would have 5 legs. Oh wait.... Is that really how the real world works?

[Buzzard]

Joining this thread late, read this far and feel I should comment.

What has money got to do with it? If the church loses tax-exempt status I would see that as a good thing. We are too "plugged-in" to Babylon in my view and need to extracate ourselves.

For this reason I have quit seeking tax relief on my tithing and other contributions to the church.

I would also favour the disincorporation of the church. The church is subject to corporate law in the US because it is actually The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and therefore not really, legally, a church. "Church" means "ecclesia" which amounts to "the congregation of believers"; i.e. us the people. We are not a corporate entity and should have nothing to do with government irrespective of whether or not it is financially advantageous, in my view.

That's a nice thought. Just how much humanitarian work should we stop doing and how many fewer buildings should we construct because we are paying property taxes on all our chapels, temples, bishops storehouses, welfare farms, etc...? I'm less concerned about deductiblity  of members donations than I am about taxes on property and assets.