Are Our Values Under Attack?

[CV75]

No, the shock is not in response to a "religious person or organization [that] would dare to speak in the public square." I encourage free speech.

 

The shock is in the fact that the religious person or organization who attempts to codify their particular brand of morality into public policy seems shocked themselves when there is public backlash against codifying a particular religion's morality.

 

I am fine with the LDS church taking their stand, I just find it laughable when they then cry about persecution because the courts and/or public opinion did not support the codification of their LDS morality.

When a set of values was once indeed the basis for a law that honors that founding morality and that law gets changed to remove those values out of the equation, then yes, those values are under attack, whether you agree with them or not.

[CV75]

a cesspool of sexual immorality *** a cesspool of greed and materialism

Which issue currently gets more attention in the political arena by the world at large, and which spiritual message of repentance which conflicts with it will entice someone to hear more about other areas of repentance?

There will always be poor for the saints to take out of the material cesspool whether they are in spiritual danger or not. But there will not always be sexual sinners to come unto Christ if we don't stem the tide of that cesspool that irretrievably swallows up souls spiritually.

[pogi]

I do completely understand your concerns about the slipping away of morality.  I also share those concerns.  I just don't think that gay marriage is a moral issue.  It is difficult to argue that gays are more moral if they are not allowed to marry.  Or that straights are more moral if gays are not allowed to marry.  Just who is more moral by not allowing gays to marry?  

I can see how for you gay marriage is not a moral issue.  However, It has been a moral issue in our society traditionally.  Homosexuality itself is a moral issue for me, it does not seem to be so much for society any more, and I understand that, I just don't agree with it.    Do you see from my perspective how voting for gay marriage would be equivalent to condoning immorality?  Voting contrary to my values would be an act of immorality.  I cannot in good conscience do that.  For me, gay marriage very much is a moral issue. 

 

It is not marriage which sanctifies a couple, it is a couple which sanctifies a marriage.  The act of consummation in marriage is sacred.  Allowing for gay marriage will taint that.  Marriage does not and cannot morally legitimize a homosexual couple, but that's exactly what it will do in the eyes of society.  It will be one more stone off of our mountain of social morality.  That is the reason for the stance against gay marriage.  It is viewed as a one last call on society to not loosen its moral code any further.  It is an appeal for our traditional social morality. 

 

If you viewed homosexuality as an immoral act, could you in good conscience condone it?  

[why me]

Don't you see the difference in emphasis?

We are encouraged to change OUR behavior when it comes to alleviating material poverty. However, when it's time to deal with SSM, abortion, etc., it isn't enough to simply curb our behavior. We must work to get all of society to change because living in a cesspool of sexual immorality "offends" our values. Yet, living in a cesspool of greed and materialism is something we're fine with. We're certainly not so disturbed by it that we would consider taking any someone else's agency to achieve our ideals of a charitable and just society.

I am not fine with materialism and greed and so who is we? Are the saints in sweden fine with greed? Are the saints in russia fine with it? I do think that american saints are influenced by the system which governs them. But even in the US not all are. In europe the saints vote various parties: greens, socialist, christian democrat, labor, conservative etc. Much more diverse. And in africa, they also vote for various candidates. We cannot always assume that the US mormons speak for the mormon world.

[thesometimesaint]

Strange thing that. The people of the USA have long supported those old fuddy-duddy Christian moral - not LDS morals. The only thing that has changed is that of activist judges and those in the legal profession either unilaterally overriding the will of the people or not to prosecute the law of the land.  Now that is laughable.

 

Treaty of Tripoli

 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, ... ."

 

10 June 1797

[USU78]

Why would you conflate motive with justification? I simply identified the REASON for the attack. That does not mean that I think it was justified. For the record, it was NOT.

For example, if Mr. T was mugged in NYC (and who isn't?), I would surmise that the REASON was because of the monetary value of his jewelry (as opposed to, say, his being a devout Christian). In neither case would he DESERVED to be robbed, but for the sake of preventing future crimes, it might be helpful to know that the criminals are targeting the bejeweled and not the "beloved." That way, when we assign extra security details, we won't have all of our forces guarding the monk who has taken a vow of poverty.

 

You don't get it, do you?  Unbelievable.

 

This elderly woman was honored by being given the chance to lead the recessional out of the chapel, when she was roughed up, robbed, and the cross desecrated, all because the anti-Prop-8 crowd lost an election.  The perpetrators were admitted anti-Prop-8-ers.

 

Perhaps beating up little old ladies is okay in your algebra, but it ain't in most people's.

 

If you truly believe this was okay, you really ought to look at yourself.  'Cause that ain't right.  By any measure.

[USU78]

Treaty of Tripoli

 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, ... ."

 

10 June 1797

 

Ignorance or deception.

 

Prolly the latter.

 

Or, perhaps, a sop to the vicious sensibilities of the jihadiis.

[thesometimesaint]

Ignorance or deception.

 

Prolly the latter.

 

Or, perhaps, a sop to the vicious sensibilities of the jihadiis.

 

How about what the law actually says?

 

Where have I ever advocated for violence?

Edited April 9, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

The will of the people can't overturn the rights of minorities. If it could we'd be in trouble as a church. 

Uh in case you hadn't noticed, we are.

[Gray]

Uh in case you hadn't noticed, we are.

 

That's true, but not due to any legal or legislative threats. 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

Well I first have to understand what you are saying before I feel like I should comment on it.  It seems like a logical and curteous thing to do.  I don't think I am know as someone who doesn't speak his mind.

 

 

I agree.  With due respect, while we’re on the subjects of logic and courtesy, accusing your opponent in an argument or discussion of fear mongering doesn’t seem to meet those standards.

 

Thank you for correcting me on the actual number of justices it takes to hear a case.

 

 

You’re welcome.  I do think, in any discussion or argument, that the soundness of one’s premises affects the quality of one’s argument.  If one’s argument is based (at least in part) on the assumption that, e.g., a smaller number of justices than is actually the case must agree in order for a party to be granted certiorari, then one might reach the mistaken conclusion that if a party couldn’t even convince that small (but incorrect) number of justices to grant certiorari, it must have something to do with the merits of the case (when, in fact, that isn’t necessarily so).

 

But I will argue that at least this particular case has much merit.  This case lost in EVERY SINGLE court it was heard. 

 

 

 

OK.  But there’s an old saying that courts of last resort aren’t last because they’re right; they’re right because they’re last.  There would be nothing for law students and law professors to discuss in the nation’s numerous law schools if the former were true rather than the latter.  If courts of last resort really were last because they’re right, then, rather than using the Socratic Method to torture law students , law professors would simply lecture students on the black-letter “rule” to be drawn from every case in which a court of last resort has handed down a decision, and that would be the end of it.  True, law school would be easier, cheaper, and shorter; but students and – especially – professors wouldn’t have nearly as much fun!

 

As I said before, if proponents of gay marriage simply say, “We just want the state to extend legal recognition to our unions, as it does with straight couples,” and that were the end of it, that would be one thing: I don’t think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders would be nearly as concerned with gay marriage as they are.  However, as I argued before, I believe it is quite possible (indeed, probable) that gay marriage will be the “wrench” which activists will use to attempt to change religious practices in various other ways (the First Amendment’s alleged protection of religious exercise notwithstanding).  You believe that’s a slippery-slope argument, and slippery-slope arguments often are disfavored by those who allegedly are logically and legally erudite.  Fine.  I get that.  Only time will provide enough evidence to determine whether my argument is sound.  Unfortunately, by then, it will probably be too late to undo any damage that might result.  Perhaps by that time, most will feel that any such “damage” was done in the service of what they believe to be a greater good.

 

Lets explore the concept you advocate that a religious belief should exempt someone from following the law. . . .

 

 

The idea that there must be (or even that there can be) a law to right every wrong is fallacious.  If someone refuses to provide me the service I desire, I can either: (1) turn petulant, demand that such a state of affairs change with respect to a given provider, and sue (or otherwise invoke the legal process); or (2) do the adult thing, vote with my feet, refuse to patronize such a provider, and find another provider who doesn’t have such a problem providing me the service I requested.   If enough people follow the second course of action, the market will do what so many people were so anxious to see the law do.  While it may take somewhat longer to achieve the desired result of not allowing someone who holds views with which the community disagrees to do business in that community if the second option is followed, it still accomplishes the same result – with less time, less money, and fewer other resources expended.

 

I freely admit that many courts have decided that I’m on the “wrong” side of the law and on the “wrong” side of history with respect to gay marriage.  It is likely that they will continue to do so.  I freely admit that the unintended consequences likely to result to religion, as well as to other matters of conscience, of the reasoning used to support such institutions as gay marriage, have yet to be seen.  (The only problem is that by the time they are, nobody but the miniscule religiously-devout minority will care.) And again, I realize that slippery slope arguments aren’t popular among the legally- and logically-erudite.  I also realize that the positions of the religiously devout taken on these issues aren’t popular.  But none of those things individually nor all of them taken together, mean, ultimately, that I will turn out to be wrong.  

Edited April 9, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

I can see how for you gay marriage is not a moral issue.  However, It has been a moral issue in our society traditionally.  Homosexuality itself is a moral issue for me, it does not seem to be so much for society any more, and I understand that, I just don't agree with it.    Do you see from my perspective how voting for gay marriage would be equivalent to condoning immorality?  Voting contrary to my values would be an act of immorality.  I cannot in good conscience do that.  For me, gay marriage very much is a moral issue. 

 

It is not marriage which sanctifies a couple, it is a couple which sanctifies a marriage.  The act of consummation in marriage is sacred.  Allowing for gay marriage will taint that.  Marriage does not and cannot morally legitimize a homosexual couple, but that's exactly what it will do in the eyes of society.  It will be one more stone off of our mountain of social morality.  That is the reason for the stance against gay marriage.  It is viewed as a one last call on society to not loosen its moral code any further.  It is an appeal for our traditional social morality. 

 

If you viewed homosexuality as an immoral act, could you in good conscience condone it?  

Well a couple of thoughts.  I completely understand that you feel homosexuality is immoral.  But I think you will agree, not allowing gays to marry will not make homosexuality stop.  One could reasonably argue that allowing gays to marry helps build stronger family units and decreases promiscuity.  I have a sister that has tried very hard to understand what I am going through who is also Mormon.  When I found my boyfriend who I have been with for over 5 years, she told me she was much happier knowing that I was in a committed relationship.  As a former Mormon, I fully understood her reasoning.  So I guess what I am wondering is why can't a Mormon who is against homosexuality, still see a social value in gay couples being able to marry.  

 

I agree, it is the couple that sanctifies marriage.  I am not a big believe in the concept that if gays are allowed to marry then somehow my marriage will change or suffer, any more than I believe that Britney Spears one day marriage changes anyone's marriage.  There are a good many people, one could even say 50% of the people that marry. treat marriage in less than honorable way.  It doesn't mean that you should abandon the idea of what marriage means to you and your spouse.  The two are not really connected.  Should we pass laws in this country that if a person commits adultery, he should never be allowed to marry because he has tainted the sanctity of marriage?  Do you realize that it is legal in this country for murderers to marry?  Should the government start screening everyone who wants to marry and judge if they are worthy?  Or are you just comfortable with denying gay couples from marrying??  Can you see how you can be against homosexuality, but still feel like they should have the legal right to marry?

[Buzzard]

As LDS, it seems reasonable to ask why the Brethren are so concerned. And based on news releases, conference talks and other pronouncements, it's safe to say that they are concerned. So, are they just a bunch of doddering, conservative old men out of touch with today's world? Did the world of public opinion shift to fast for them to handle? 

Or maybe, they are the prophets we sustain them to be, and they can see what is coming. Perhaps this tide of secularism and amorality and acceptance of what was universally considered immoral a decade ago will in the coming years crash like a tsunami on the church and any other institutions and individuals who do not get with the times. I don't know the answer to that question, but if anyone does, it's a prophet, seer, and revelator. 

[mormonnewb]

I am not fine with materialism and greed and so who is we? Are the saints in sweden fine with greed? Are the saints in russia fine with it? I do think that american saints are influenced by the system which governs them. But even in the US not all are. In europe the saints vote various parties: greens, socialist, christian democrat, labor, conservative etc. Much more diverse. And in africa, they also vote for various candidates. We cannot always assume that the US mormons speak for the mormon world.

But our Prophets do speak for the worldwide church. They spoke directly towards a California issue with Prop 8, so certainly they could speak to a US issue with regards to rapacious greed.

Of course, that would mean taking on the saints directly because, you're right, most Americans (myself included) are steeped in materialism. Yet, to me, that is part of Christ's success as a minister of the Gospel.

It would have been so easy for Him to build a following railing against the "Evil Empire" of Rome. Or for Him to tear down traditional scourges of Jewish society, such as the Samaritans. Instead, He went after the plank in their own eyes -- how many of His fellow Jews were pious in small matters but ignored large scale injustices.

And let's be clear. Ancient Rome made our current society look like a Puritan enclave. They had every form of sexual vice that we can imagine and it didn't just involve ADULTS. And while Christ must have been aggrieved by it, I don't remember a single teaching in which He railed against their sinful "society." He taught against individual sin but He didn't teach that they should try to curtail the sin in others.

I think He realized that they had enough sin of their own to deal with. I know that I do.

[pogi]

Well a couple of thoughts.  I completely understand that you feel homosexuality is immoral.  But I think you will agree, not allowing gays to marry will not make homosexuality stop.  One could reasonably argue that allowing gays to marry helps build stronger family units and decreases promiscuity.  

 

Yes, I agree that not allowing gays to marry will not stop homosexuality.  Voting against homosexual marriage is not a vote to stop homosexuality, it is a vote to preserve the moral integrity and voice of our society who are not gay and feel that it is immoral.  Those values are slipping away quickly and which is the reason for the appeal.  The fight against gay marriage is not a fight to change homosexuals, but a fight to preserve traditional social values.  While promiscuity may decrease, all homosexual acts are immoral.  It doesn't matter if it is with one individual or multiple.  It is all wrong.  I'm also not convinced that marriage between a gay couple will increase commitment and sexual loyalty to that individual.  If they were committed before marriage was legal, they will be committed after, and vise versa.  If marriage is simply for legal benefits, then there is no real obligation to keep any sacred covenant, hence the skyrocketing divorce rates. 

 

As a former Mormon, I fully understood her reasoning.  So I guess what I am wondering is why can't a Mormon who is against homosexuality, still see a social value in gay couples being able to marry.  

 

I wouldn't call it a social value.  Gays don't need marriage to live a committed life with their partner.   Society doesn't need to vote contrary to their values by condoning homosexual activity for you to live in a committed relationship.  If you believe that staying true to a single partner is more virtuous, I commend you, but I will not vote contrary to my values to prove it. 

 

 

Should we pass laws in this country that if a person commits adultery, he should never be allowed to marry because he has tainted the sanctity of marriage?  Do you realize that it is legal in this country for murderers to marry?  Should the government start screening everyone who wants to marry and judge if they are worthy?  Or are you just comfortable with denying gay couples from marrying??  Can you see how you can be against homosexuality, but still feel like they should have the legal right to marry?

 

If every act of physical intimacy in a marriage constituted an immoral act, yes, that particular type of marriage should be illegal.  Not to keep those individuals from committing immorality, but to keeping the family unit pure and to preserve the integrity of what we do and what we do not condone in marriage.  Adulterers can marry because we believe in redemption.  We believe that people can choose to make better choices in their marriages.  A previous adulterer or murderer does not reenact their previous immoral acts through each act of physical intimacy in a way that homosexuals would. That is the difference.  While their previous lives may be spotty, their married life can still remain pure and moral. 

Edited April 9, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

And let's be clear. Ancient Rome made our current society look like a Puritan enclave. They had every form of sexual vice that we can imagine and it didn't just involve ADULTS. And while Christ must have been aggrieved by it, I don't remember a single teaching in which He railed against their sinful "society." He taught against individual sin but He didn't teach that they should try to curtail the sin in others.

I think He realized that they had enough sin of their own to deal with. I know that I do.

 

But do you really believe that Christ would have condoned their sexual vices by voting to legalize it?  The difference is that Christ did not belong to a voting republic.  The Jews didn't really have a voice in what constituted Roman law, it's no wonder that he didn't speak much about it.  He did however condemn the acts of their sexual vices.  I find it hard to believe that he would have voted to condone the acts that he condemned.  Wouldn't we be doing that very thing by voting for gay marriage?

Edited April 9, 2014 by pogi

[mormonnewb]

But do you really believe that Christ would have condoned their sexual vices by voting to legalize it?  The difference is that Christ did not belong to a voting republic.  The Jews didn't really have a voice in what constituted Roman law, it's no wonder that he didn't speak much about it.  He did however condemn the acts of their sexual vices.  I find it hard to believe that he would have voted to condone the acts that he condemned.  Wouldn't we be doing that very thing by voting for gay marriage?

 

I'm not so sure that Christ wouldn't vote for the legalization of sin.  After all, isn't that what we all did when we chose Christ's plan over Satan's?

 

As I understand it, Satan would have removed sin from the equation by taking away agency.  Yet, we chose an option that would allow us to sin but also allow us the opportunity to CHOOSE the right.  So why are we trying to legislate away the agency that we fought a war in Heaven to achieve?

 

And I don't think that most Mormons would try to remove someone's agency by, say, outlawing homosexual behavior in total.  Just as we are not trying to outlaw fornication.  I think we get caught up in the legal "sanction" of marriage.  Yes, people should be able to have their relationships but the rest of us shouldn't have to "sanction" it, right?

 

Well, that would be fine except for the fact that we're asking for them to "sanction" our marriages.  It seems that in a fair and free society, we can't have it both ways.  And if we're so dead set against adding our sanction to gay marriage, then we should relinquish our sanctioned unions.  We would still be married in the eyes of our God, but there would be no such legal fiction of marriage.

 

Of course, this seems like a lot of extra work for lawyers so perhaps we might just want to adopt a live and let live attitude about this one, but I don't think we have a tenable argument that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW our unions deserve sanction and theirs don't.

[why me]

But do you really believe that Christ would have condoned their sexual vices by voting to legalize it?  The difference is that Christ did not belong to a voting republic.  The Jews didn't really have a voice in what constituted Roman law, it's no wonder that he didn't speak much about it.  He did however condemn the acts of their sexual vices.  I find it hard to believe that he would have voted to condone the acts that he condemned.  Wouldn't we be doing that very thing by voting for gay marriage?

I may also say that Paul also condemned the acts of the pagans. He certainly didn't say to the christians to support them in their debauchery. People can forget that paul had a problem with pagan values and its influence on the gentile church.

Edited April 9, 2014 by why me

[pogi]

I'm not so sure that Christ wouldn't vote for the legalization of sin.  After all, isn't that what we all did when we chose Christ's plan over Satan's?

 

We didn't vote to legalize sin.  Sin is still contrary to the law of God (hence the word sin) and there was no social law at the time.  We voted for agency, which is not the same thing as legality.  If I were to take your argument for what it is, then a lawless anarchy could be the only solution to these darned restrictive laws.  I don't think that is what you are arguing for, but you are. 

 

Yes, people should be able to have their relationships but the rest of us shouldn't have to "sanction" it, right?

 

Well, that would be fine except for the fact that we're asking for them to "sanction" our marriages.  It seems that in a fair and free society, we can't have it both ways.  And if we're so dead set against adding our sanction to gay marriage, then we should relinquish our sanctioned unions.  We would still be married in the eyes of our God, but there would be no such legal fiction of marriage.

 

Of course, this seems like a lot of extra work for lawyers so perhaps we might just want to adopt a live and let live attitude about this one, but I don't think we have a tenable argument that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW our unions deserve sanction and theirs don't.

 

I am not asking them to sanction our marriages.  They can try to legislate against them if they want.

 

Again, do you see how the live and let live attitude about this one can easily lead to a live and let live attitude about any one?  Where do you draw the line?  My line is my morals.  If not that, then what?

Edited April 9, 2014 by pogi

[why me]

 

Of course, this seems like a lot of extra work for lawyers so perhaps we might just want to adopt a live and let live attitude about this one, but I don't think we have a tenable argument that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW our unions deserve sanction and theirs don't.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. It is going in that direction anyway, at least in the west. Live and let live especially when church members begin to support the eat, drink and be merry mantra too. So, it is a losing battle. So, the very idea that one can fight against it is true. But one will lose the fight. But at least one can try to do what is right regardless. But the battle is lost. I remember the 70s very well. Living in NYC was like living in one big orgy. Studio 54 was in full swing and other swing joints were springing up all over the place. Not to mention live sex shows. Gay bath houses were very much alive in the Greenwich Village area. I remember the NYC life very well and what was happening in the city. Not a bad place to be a college student. Prostitutes walking the streets...high class call girls too. It was the age of sexual liberation.

 

But for a young church member chasity was a elephant in the room. So many beautiful people messing around and yet...one needed to say no. Have things changed? Yes. Aids put a damper on the sexual revolution for awhile. Fear ruled. But the sex industry took advantage of the fear. Porn went from the theaters to VHS to DVD to the internet. It entered the home in a very strong way. And television became much more sexual to help keep the fantasy alive in people's minds. And now a ten year old can watch adults have sex on the internet. And many are watching. But that is okay. Why fight it? Just submit to the will of the people. freedom of speech and freedom to watch what we desire to watch.

 

So, yes, gays should marry. Two men should have the right to adopt...two women too. Why not? Brothers and sisters should also have a right to marry. Why not? Freedom and equality. No one gets hurt. And mormons and other traditional value christians can just eat it and relax. And pretend that no one is attacking their traditional values.

Edited April 9, 2014 by why me

[california boy]

I agree.  With due respect, while we’re on the subjects of logic and courtesy, accusing your opponent in an argument or discussion of fear mongering doesn’t seem to meet those standards.

 

 

You’re welcome.  I do think, in any discussion or argument, that the soundness of one’s premises affects the quality of one’s argument.  If one’s argument is based (at least in part) on the assumption that, e.g., a smaller number of justices than is actually the case must agree in order for a party to be granted certiorari, then one might reach the mistaken conclusion that if a party couldn’t even convince that small (but incorrect) number of justices to grant certiorari, it must have something to do with the merits of the case (when, in fact, that isn’t necessarily so).

 

 

OK.  But there’s an old saying that courts of last resort aren’t last because they’re right; they’re right because they’re last.  There would be nothing for law students and law professors to discuss in the nation’s numerous law schools if the former were true rather than the latter.  If courts of last resort really were last because they’re right, then, rather than using the Socratic Method to torture law students , law professors would simply lecture students on the black-letter “rule” to be drawn from every case in which a court of last resort has handed down a decision, and that would be the end of it.  True, law school would be easier, cheaper, and shorter; but students and – especially – professors wouldn’t have nearly as much fun!

 

As I said before, if proponents of gay marriage simply say, “We just want the state to extend legal recognition to our unions, as it does with straight couples,” and that were the end of it, that would be one thing: I don’t think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders would be nearly as concerned with gay marriage as they are.  However, as I argued before, I believe it is quite possible (indeed, probable) that gay marriage will be the “wrench” which activists will use to attempt to change religious practices in various other ways (the First Amendment’s alleged protection of religious exercise notwithstanding).  You believe that’s a slippery-slope argument, and slippery-slope arguments often are disfavored by those who allegedly are logically and legally erudite.  Fine.  I get that.  Only time will provide enough evidence to determine whether my argument is sound.  Unfortunately, by then, it will probably be too late to undo any damage that might result.  Perhaps by that time, most will feel that any such “damage” was done in the service of what they believe to be a greater good.

 

 

The idea that there must be (or even that there can be) a law to right every wrong is fallacious.  If someone refuses to provide me the service I desire, I can either: (1) turn petulant, demand that such a state of affairs change with respect to a given provider, and sue (or otherwise invoke the legal process); or (2) do the adult thing, vote with my feet, refuse to patronize such a provider, and find another provider who doesn’t have such a problem providing me the service I requested.   If enough people follow the second course of action, the market will do what so many people were so anxious to see the law do.  While it may take somewhat longer to achieve the desired result of not allowing someone who holds views with which the community disagrees to do business in that community if the second option is followed, it still accomplishes the same result – with less time, less money, and fewer other resources expended.

 

I freely admit that many courts have decided that I’m on the “wrong” side of the law and on the “wrong” side of history with respect to gay marriage.  It is likely that they will continue to do so.  I freely admit that the unintended consequences likely to result to religion, as well as to other matters of conscience, of the reasoning used to support such institutions as gay marriage, have yet to be seen.  (The only problem is that by the time they are, nobody but the miniscule religiously-devout minority will care.) And again, I realize that slippery slope arguments aren’t popular among the legally- and logically-erudite.  I also realize that the positions of the religiously devout taken on these issues aren’t popular.  But none of those things individually nor all of them taken together, mean, ultimately, that I will turn out to be wrong.  

I understand your concerns.  I am sure if I were in your shoes, I would probably have those same concerns.  I guess I look at the two issues as being completely different issues.  I feel like equality under the law is something that the Constitution is pretty clear about in the 14th amendment.  The courts seem to agree.  I also feel that same Constitution is very clear about religion having protection from the government telling them how they are to worship.  And I would be just as passionate in fighting anyone trying to impose their values and beliefs on a religious institution.  Maybe that day will come when that gets challenged.  I think there is some comfort in knowing that like gays having equal protection, churches have rights granted to them as well.  It would be difficult to have numerous judges willing to throw out that constitutional right.

 

In regards to the right for someone to discriminate against a minority, the idea that you embrace was already tried for over 100 years.  It created a system where "your kind are not welcome here".  I found that system to be not only unAmerican but like I posted  earlier, unChrist like as well.  I am more than happy with the civil rights laws passed in the 60's.  We are a better nation because of it.  No one should demean someone because of their religion, skin color or sexual orientation.  The last one we still are working on.  It will take time, but in the end, like you said, we will get there.

[pogi]

but I don't think we have a tenable argument that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW our unions deserve sanction and theirs don't.

 

I don't think that we should vote for what is legally possible, we should vote for what is morally right.  I don's think that sanctioning immorality is morally right.

[Kenngo1969]

... In regards to the right for someone to discriminate against a minority, the idea that you embrace was already tried for over 100 years.  It created a system where "your kind are not welcome here".  I found that system to be not only unAmerican but like I posted  earlier, unChrist like as well.  I am more than happy with the civil rights laws passed in the 60's.  We are a better nation because of it.  No one should demean someone because of their religion, skin color or sexual orientation.  The last one we still are working on.  It will take time, but in the end, like you said, we will get there.

I realize that it's popular to paint those who are concerned about gay marriage and/or those who oppose it on moral and religious grounds with the same broad brush and conclude that they would have opposed equal access to public facilities, equal voting rights, and so on for racial minorities in the 1950s and 60s, but I don't think such a tactic serves gay marriage proponents and/or those who are not particularly concerned about it well.  You may disagree (which is understandable), but many people of good conscience and good will are reluctant to draw that parallel, for reasons which they also hold in good conscience, in reasonable intelligence, and in good faith. I cannot stop you from tarring all of your opponents with that same broad brush if that's what you choose to do, but I don't think that it's conducive to respectful, productive, argumentation and dialogue.

[mormonnewb]

We didn't vote to legalize sin.  Sin is still contrary to the law of God (hence the word sin) and there was no social law at the time.  We voted for agency, which is not the same thing as legality.  If I were to take your argument for what it is, then a lawless anarchy could be the only solution to these darned restrictive laws.  I don't think that is what you are arguing for, but you are. 

 

 

I am not asking them to sanction our marriages.  They can try to legislate against them if they want.

 

Again, do you see how the live and let live attitude about this one can easily lead to a live and let live attitude about any one?  Where do you draw the line?  My line is my morals.  If not that, then what?

We can draw the line at harm to another. Murder is not only morally wrong but it has a DIRECT impact on another's persons ability to live their life. The marriage of Adam and Steve does not do so.

As a minority religion, we should be especially wary of advocating that laws be based solely on moral values. Would YOU like to be denied a blood transfusion (or medical care in its entirety) because someone else finds it immoral? Or do you want to be forced to live by someone else's dietary standards?

The idea that some citizens can impose THEIR moral values on others in the absence of a justification of alleviating direct and consequential harm should be something we can all agree to band against.

[mormonnewb]

I don't think that we should vote for what is legally possible, we should vote for what is morally right.  I don's think that sanctioning immorality is morally right.

We sanction immorality ALL of the time. Would you vote for a law CRIMINALIZING fornication?