stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I was mocked back in 2008 for suggesting that our involvement in Prop 8 was a bad idea. 7 years later it has proven to be a failed attempt and actually helped propel the matter to SCOTUS. Worse yet, our church is now public enemy #1 when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. Exactly. Good for you for standing up and saying something about it in 2008. Was that in Church or on this board? I was quiet about it in 2008 in my ward, but I was not happy. 1
Mystery Meat Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 There are religions that teach that SSM is moral, whether Oaks recognizes them or not. How is advocating against gay marriage an issue of religious freedom but the actual gay marriage is not a matter of religious freedom? Bluebell can correct me if I am wrong, is that there is nothing stopping gay folks from getting married right now for religious reasons in any state in the country. They may not get certain legal benefits, but if the state stopped recognizing Mormon marriages, we could still go to the temple and get sealed.
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) What has frustrated me is their lack of clarity. When you have some people upset because you are telling people to accept gays and lesbians and then other people upset because you are telling people to discriminate against gays and lesbians you know that there has been a fail of communication.That's understandable. I don't believe they were being patronizing. I think they are very very sincere-but that the nature of the topic is hard to explain and that they didn't do a good enough job making sure they were as clear as possible before going to the press with it. You disagree with me Well then I'll just ignoring you right now. just kidding. I hope you are right. Edited February 3, 2015 by stemelbow
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Exactly. Good for you for standing up and saying something about it in 2008. Was that in Church or on this board? I was quiet about it in 2008 in my ward, but I was not happy. I wasn't on these boards back in 2008. Which is good. I needed to work through my faith crisis before coming here. The mocking came from family, extended family, and friends.
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I wasn't on these boards back in 2008. Which is good. I needed to work through my faith crisis before coming here. The mocking came from family, extended family, and friends. Well sorry to hear it.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 There are religions that teach that SSM is moral, whether Oaks recognizes them or not.That's not the issue. Unless there are religions that teach that allowing someone to swim in the olympics who supported SSM is immoral, then being allowed to pressure someone who supported prop. 8 to resign from the olympic team has nothing to do with religious freedom. How is advocating against gay marriage an issue of religious freedom but the actual gay marriage is not a matter of religious freedom? I think you are confused about what Oaks and the church's position is. Being allowed to advocate against gay marriage is an issue of religious freedom. Being allowed to advocate for gay marriage is also an issue of religious freedom. The church has never said that people shouldn't be allowed to advocate for SSM. SSM being made illegal was not an issue of religious freedom. SSM being made legal was also not an issue of religious freedom. I've never read Oaks or the church claim that the existence of laws supporting or not supporting SSM was about religious rights. Being allowed to persecute those who advocated for or against gay marriage because you don't like their advocacy is not an issue of religious freedom. THIS is what Oaks is condemning. 2
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Bluebell can correct me if I am wrong, is that there is nothing stopping gay folks from getting married right now for religious reasons in any state in the country. They may not get certain legal benefits, but if the state stopped recognizing Mormon marriages, we could still go to the temple and get sealed. But if, through a vote of the people or a judicial act, Mormons were denied the ability to enter into any legally recognized marriages we would consider that a violation of our religious freedom. Elder Holland's counsel from last Tuesday... "Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves. " I assume that legal recognition of our marriages would be included in those rights that we want protected for ourselves. 1
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Not supporting prop 8 was not an effort to deny others civil rights, as was the effort in supporting it was. Freedom of conscious, particularly when it supports an effort to deny other's civil rights, can follow with repercussions. The guy was no denied his freedom of conscious. he was asked to step down because his expressed freedom of conscious conflicted with the members' views. They have as much right as religion to take away an honor if that someone's views conflicts with their own. The right to marry whoever you want has never been a civil right in America. Neither is it protected by the constitution. Just ask a polygamist. So supporting prop. 8 did not deny anyone's civil rights. If the constitution is ever amended that could change in the future, but that's not the case right now, neither was it in 2008. Just because people want something to be a civil right, or even believe something is a civil right, doesn't make it one if the law doesn't declare it as such. The swimmer was asked to step down because he voted in a way that was unpopular with some of the people involved. It would be the equivalent to asking someone to step down from the olympic team because they didn't support abortion and there were people on the team who had had one in the past and very much supported it. 2
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 But if, through a vote of the people or a judicial act, Mormons were denied the ability to enter into any legally recognized marriages we would consider that a violation of our religious freedom. Elder Holland's counsel from last Tuesday... "Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves. " I assume that legal recognition of our marriages would be included in those rights that we want protected for ourselves. Yes we would. Because whether or not we could get married would be based on our religion. Whether or not a gay or lesbian person can get married is not based on their religion. 1
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 That's not the issue. Unless there are religions that teach that allowing someone to swim in the olympics who supported SSM is immoral, then being allowed to pressure someone who supported prop. 8 to resign from the olympic team has nothing to do with religious freedom. I'm not sure how to keep responding to this... maybe you should read the transcript. Vidmar was not a swimmer. He is a retired gymnast. I think you are confused about what Oaks and the church's position is. Being allowed to advocate against gay marriage is an issue of religious freedom. Being allowed to advocate for gay marriage is also an issue of religious freedom. The church has never said that people shouldn't be allowed to advocate for SSM. SSM being made illegal was not an issue of religious freedom. SSM being made legal was also not an issue of religious freedom. I've never read Oaks or the church claim that the existence of laws supporting or not supporting SSM was about religious rights. Being allowed to persecute those who advocated for or against gay marriage because you don't like their advocacy is not an issue of religious freedom. THIS is what Oaks is condemning. So, SSM being made illegal is not an issue of religious freedom. But being able to advocate against SSM legality without consequence is an issue of religious freedom? How can advocacy for something non-religious be an issue of religious freedom?
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 That's understandable. You disagree with me Well then I'll just ignoring you right now.just kidding. I hope you are right. My disagreement with your assessment is based on the other news conferences that they held where they did try to clarify their words.
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Yes we would. Because whether or not we could get married would be based on our religion. Whether or not a gay or lesbian person can get married is not based on their religion. Yep, being gay or lesbian is something that is NOT a choice. Which, for me, makes it even more egregious. But, our work as a church against gay marriage was to codify our religious beliefs into law. Which makes it very much a matter of religious freedom. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I'm not even married yet so I don't feel I have a right to argue on this topic.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I'm not sure how to keep responding to this... maybe you should read the transcript. Vidmar was not a swimmer. He is a retired gymnast. So, SSM being made illegal is not an issue of religious freedom. But being able to advocate against SSM legality without consequence is an issue of religious freedom? How can advocacy for something non-religious be an issue of religious freedom? Sorry, gymnast. Not sure where i got swimmer from but i know you're very smart so can figure out what i meant. It's not what you are advocating for, but why you are advocating for it that makes the difference. Try telling an atheist who supports SSM that their advocacy is an exercise of their freedom to express their religious beliefs and they probably won't agree. Try telling them that their advocacy is an attempt to protect the religious rights of gays and lesbians and they probably won't agree with that either. 1
USU78 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sooooo... amicus briefs aren't just underwear for lawyers? Tighty whities, babe . . .
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Yep, being gay or lesbian is something that is NOT a choice. Which, for me, makes it even more egregious. That's fine. Believe it to be very very very egregious. Just don't believe it to be an issue of religious freedom because it's not. But, our work as a church against gay marriage was to codify our religious beliefs into law. Which makes it very much a matter of religious freedom. Yes, having the right to work for or against SSM is a matter of religious freedom if someone does so based on their religious beliefs. Having a SSM recognized by the government is not a matter of religious freedom. 1
KevinG Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I'm not even married yet so I don't feel I have a right to argue on this topic. So you are heterosexual in theory then?
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 The right to marry whoever you want has never been a civil right in America. In the other thread I said:Not a religious right but it's a civil right, as it turns out. And you responded: And I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem implying that voting against SSM takes away their religious freedom. I think that's the move that has and is being made--marriage between two adults and it's attached benefits and rights, is a civil right, as granted and recognized by the government. With that said, I agree that it is not a civil right to marry whomever you want. There are restrictions--reasonable ones at that. So supporting prop. 8 did not deny anyone's civil rights. That's a matter of opinion at this point, though. The other side would disagree with you till they are blue in the face--marriage has been defined as a civil right already. If the constitution is ever amended that could change in the future, but that's not the case right now, neither was it in 2008. except: The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage . As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ... Of course this case had to do with interracial marriage. We will see that this will clearly apply to SSM and those who opposed SSM will be seen as those who tried to keep rights from people. Just because people want something to be a civil right, or even believe something is a civil right, doesn't make it one if the law doesn't declare it as such. But marriage is a right. The cases are piled up defining it as such. In time that will be clear to all. The swimmer was asked to step down because he voted in a way that was unpopular with some of the people involved. It would be the equivalent to asking someone to step down from the olympic team because they didn't support abortion and there were people on the team who had had one in the past and very much supported it. not really. It would be equivalent of the LDS Church asking an honored guest to step down from the honorary roll if that person was critical of the Church and was an atheist. The private committee has as much right as the Church would have to ask such a person to step down. 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sorry, gymnast. Not sure where i got swimmer from but i know you're very smart so can figure out what i meant. It's not what you are advocating for, but why you are advocating for it that makes the difference. Try telling an atheist who supports SSM that their advocacy is an exercise of their freedom to express their religious beliefs and they probably won't agree. Try telling them that their advocacy is an attempt to protect the religious rights of gays and lesbians and they probably won't agree with that either. Thus religious rights and personal opinion rights are the same. Adding religious to it only makes it appear as though people should be granted special exception because they are religious. Which simply should not be the case. 1
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Well, we led the charge of persecuting the beliefs of others by enforcing our beliefs on the legal definition of marriage. Oaks made no reference to it last Tuesday so one can hope (as I do) that we're done with that part of our history. That we've moved forward and are no longer opposed to legal recognition of SSM. Disagreeing with someone is not persecuting them. That seems absurd. Here in Utah right now there is a huge debate about wood burning. Some people want to ban it altogether because of the inversion problem, while others believe it should continue to be allowed. According to your point of view, this debate and attempt to create new laws is an act of persecution. I don't think many would agree with you. You think SSM should be legal, other's don't. You aren't persecuting them by working to get your beliefs made legal and they aren't persecuting you by working to get their beliefs made legal. 2
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Disagreeing with someone is not persecuting them. That seems absurd. Here in Utah right now there is a huge debate about wood burning. Some people want to ban it altogether because of the inversion problem, while others believe it should continue to be allowed. According to your point of view, this debate and attempt to create new laws is an act of persecution. I don't think many would agree with you. You think SSM should be legal, other's don't. You aren't persecuting them by working to get your beliefs made legal and they aren't persecuting you by working to get their beliefs made legal. But it is argued that trying to keep rights from people is persecution. And it seems a pretty good case can be made to substantiate that.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 In the other thread I said:And you responded: I think that's the move that has and is being made--marriage between two adults and it's attached benefits and rights, is a civil right, as granted and recognized by the government. With that said, I agree that it is not a civil right to marry whomever you want. There are restrictions--reasonable ones at that. That's a matter of opinion at this point, though. The other side would disagree with you till they are blue in the face--marriage has been defined as a civil right already.except:Of course this case had to do with interracial marriage. We will see that this will clearly apply to SSM and those who opposed SSM will be seen as those who tried to keep rights from people. But marriage is a right. The cases are piled up defining it as such. In time that will be clear to all. not really. It would be equivalent of the LDS Church asking an honored guest to step down from the honorary roll if that person was critical of the Church and was an atheist. The private committee has as much right as the Church would have to ask such a person to step down. Sorry if i was confusing. I don't have a problem that the state has declared it to be a civil right and i don't have a problem that some people always believed it to be a civil right. What i disagree with is taking your belief and holding other people accountable to it. The idea that because some people believed it to be a civil right then fighting against it was fighting against civil rights. Like it said, if the government decides it is a civil right then they have that ability. But in 2008, the government had not decided that.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 But it is argued that trying to keep rights from people is persecution. And it seems a pretty good case can be made to substantiate that. It depends. Back to the wood burning issue-one of the things being argued right now is that wood burning is a right. Does that mean that those who are trying to get it outlawed are persecuting those who believe they should be allowed to do it?
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sorry if i was confusing. I don't have a problem that the state has declared it to be a civil right and i don't have a problem that some people always believed it to be a civil right. What i disagree with is taking your belief and holding other people accountable to it. The idea that because some people believed it to be a civil right then fighting against it was fighting against civil rights. Like it said, if the government decides it is a civil right then they have that ability. But in 2008, the government had not decided that. That's fine. But some people will always see it as an effort to withhold civil rights from others. From Elder Oaks circa 1984: Recognition of homosexual marriages would entitle homosexual couples to such diverse privileges as child adoption, tax benefits , right to court- enforced support , alimony and property division upon divorce , social security benefits , property rights such as intestate inheritance or "spouse's indefeasible share , citizenship privileges , right to sue for wrongful death , access to housing th t is restricted to married couples or unattached singles , and pension and group insurance benefits , to name only a few. In my opinion , the interests at stake in the proposed legalization of so- called homosexual marriages are sufficient to justify a formal Church position and significant efforts in opposition . http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/1/3/913d6fed4525a85a/Principles-To-Govern-Possible-Public-Statement-On-Legislation-Affecting-Rights-Of-Homosexuals-August-7-1984-Dallin-H.-Oaks.pdf?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06ca853ed9cd5fd494&c_id=8270928 Here he speaks of certain "rights" that should not be granted to gay couples. I think he had the gist of the issue back in 1984. I don't know why that would change by 2008.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Thus religious rights and personal opinion rights are the same. Adding religious to it only makes it appear as though people should be granted special exception because they are religious. Which simply should not be the case. I don't think Oaks would suggest that it was o.k. for an atheist to be denied a spot on Olympic team because he supported prop. 8 either. I don't think anyone's suggesting that people's religious beliefs are more important than non religious beliefs. What is being argued is that they are not less important than non religious beliefs. 1
Recommended Posts