Same Sex Marriage Vs. Convenience Abortion - A Question Of Priority And Societal Harm

[carbon dioxide]

I should also note that while I personally don't understand it I am not opposed at all to SSM and don't view it at all as the moral threat to society that the LDS church leadership does. I would oppose any law forcing religions to perform SSM.

I have similar but different views.  I don't support the idea of gay marriage but I don't think it is a big moral threat to society.  I see gay marriage is just one more symptom of a declining society but it has been going downhill for a long time.  Having 1% of the population engage in gay marriages is not going to be the final straw. 

Edited September 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

I think using the assertion that either is worse in order to redirect political attention away from the lack of moral standing for the other is absolutely diabolical.

I agree.  Murder is far worse than stealing but both are against both civil and eternal law and both can result in grave consequences. 

Edited September 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

The church is not quiet at all about SSM. Check out the September Ensign and Elder Ballard's article.

As to the topic I voted abortion is worse, Personally I am extremely opposed to abortion.

I meant quiet in the political and public sphere. Of course apostles will continue to remind members as needed. Even the article you referenced was a small thing. A small part of a much larger group of warnings.

[california boy]

I was giving my opinion.  I base it not a study and I understand they are separate issues but I base it on a mind set and I think I would be right.  Just look at the political parties.  Which party strongly favors legal abortion?  Which party strongly favors gay marriage.  I do believe there is a significant overlap of the people who would support both.

 

Maybe I could give you a different perspective to consider.  I am one of those of the other party (yeah probably not a big surprise to anyone.)  The philosophy that I agree with is a government that is less intrusive in our lives.  I don't think the government's role is to dictate behavior to it's citizens that does not intrude on the rights of others.  So while I personally am against abortion and think it is wrong, I am not in favor of a big government that prohibits those who wish to have an abortion.

 

I feel the same about gay marriage.  While I have no intentions of marrying my boyfriend that I have been with for 6 years, I don't think the government has the right to treat gay citizens any differently than straight couples.  All should have the right to have their marriages recognized by the government or none should have the right.  We don't live in a country that discriminates against different segments of the population.

 

So you can be a member of that other party and be against abortion personally but still support the legal right to an abortion.  With gay marriage, I support both the legal right and the concept.  Creating stronger families for all Americans is a good thing.

[Kenngo1969]

I should also note that while I personally don't understand it I am not opposed at all to SSM and don't view it at all as the moral threat to society that the LDS church leadership does. I would oppose any law forcing religions to perform SSM.

Fine.  But the legalization of same-sex marriage portends potentially grave consequences to religious liberty (other than the probably-remote prospect that the government will ever force religions to perform ceremonies for gays ... though the government dictating religious practice to a church is not without precedent: see Reynolds v. United States) that the legalization of abortion has not and will not, and that's one of the primary reasons why so many of the Brethren are concerned about it.  Rightly so.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[rodheadlee]

The LDS Church has been loud in its opposition to legalized same sex marriage - perhaps most famously (infamously?) in its support for "Proposition 8" in California a few years back.  They've had company, of course.  Plenty of Evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christians have endeavored to hold the line for "traditional marriage." 

 

But while LDS have been loud & clear on the same sex marriage issue--they're relatively-speaking quiet on the question of legalized abortion where the mother's health is not in question (what I'm calling for purposes of this thread, "convenience abortion").  This is not to say LDS are in favor of abortion (they aren't)--but they clearly haven't shown the same political interest/energy in the matter of legalized convenience abortion.  And certainly not in comparison to Evangelicals and Catholics. 

 

Why is that? 

 

--Erik 

The abortion fight was lost in 1973.

[thesometimesaint]

I was giving my opinion.  I base it not a study and I understand they are separate issues but I base it on a mind set and I think I would be right.  Just look at the political parties.  Which party strongly favors legal abortion?  Which party strongly favors gay marriage.  I do believe there is a significant overlap of the people who would support both.

 

Neither major political party favors abortion or SSM. One wants to criminalize them, and the other believes it is none of your business. It is all about making others as the cause of America's so called decline.

SEE http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/it-time-get-very-afraid-extremists-authoritarians-now-run-gop-and-no-one-can

[Meadowchik]

Um, I think the fact that ssm was becoming legal comes into play.

 

However, I've said much in opposition to both over the years.

[Teancum]

I meant quiet in the political and public sphere. Of course apostles will continue to remind members as needed. Even the article you referenced was a small thing. A small part of a much larger group of warnings.

Fair enough and I agree with your clarification.

[Five Solas]

The abortion fight was lost in 1973.

That memo must not have made it to Texas--as recent legislation there has lead to 13 abortion clinics being closed.  Your defeatism notwithstanding, rodheadlee, was there anything like an equivalent to LDS support for "Proposition 8" in the years leading up to 1973?  No?  Why not?   

 

The results of this poll are surprising.  In this forum, considerably more LDS are concerned with the legality of convenience abortion than they are with SSM.  But such voting is plainly out of step with the political actions (not to be confused with any occasional lip service) of LDS leadership. 

 

Some say it's because the LDS prophets have been silent on the question of when life begins (while Catholic Popes and many Protestant leaders, by comparison, have felt inspired to make their position abundantly clear).  Some (yourself included) think the matter is settled and the LDS Church has no business trying to change existing laws. 

 

I think these explanations are pretty interesting, perhaps even revealing. 

 

So thank you,

 

--Erik

[Five Solas]

...

I personally don't care much if they marry or not. It does however represent the continued degradation of the morals of our society.

Pretty interesting to me you think: 1) SSM contributes to societal "degradation" (your second sentence quoted above) and that, 2) you really don't care about it (your first sentence quoted above).

 

Independent of whether you're right or wrong--I've long held a theory that those who think society, culture, humanity, etc., are getting worse & worse (as many LDS appear to think) are likely to be the least effective advocating and implementing useful change & thereby being a blessing to anyone.  They stop fighting injustice because they think the matter was settled in 1973 (or whenever, depending on the issue).  Perhaps in extreme cases they even hope injustice will persist & not be overturned--thereby justifying their decision to do nothing (because, you know, it's all going to hell-in-a-hand-basket anyhow).

 

I'll try to develop the idea into a more coherent thread-topic in the coming weeks.  

 

--Erik    

Edited September 28, 2015 by Five Solas

[JAHS]

Pretty interesting to me you think: 1) SSM contributes to societal "degradation" (your second sentence quoted above) and that, 2) you really don't care about it (your first sentence quoted above).

 

Independent of whether you're right or wrong--I've long held a theory that those who think society, culture, humanity, etc., are getting worse & worse (as many LDS appear to think) are likely to be the least effective advocating and implementing useful change & thereby being a blessing to anyone.  They stop fighting injustice because they think the matter was settled in 1973 (or whenever, depending on the issue).  Perhaps in extreme cases they even hope injustice will persist & not be overturned--thereby justifying their decision to do nothing (because, you know, it's all going to hell-in-a-hand-basket anyhow).

 

I'll try to develop the idea into a more coherent thread-topic in the coming weeks.  

 

--Erik    

I guess what I mean is that it doesn't affect me personally if a few gay people get married. But at the same time I don't like the fact that the morality of the world is in a downward spiral.  We should always stand for what we think is right and do what we can to prevent it from happening. It's a bit of a conundrum when we consider that God prophesied that this would happen but at the same time we should try not to let it happen. Hence the Church's publishing of the Proclamation on the Family. 

"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

 

If these things were propheseid by ancient prophets is it not inevitable that it will happen some time?

Edited September 28, 2015 by JAHS

[Teancum]

Fine.  But the legalization of same-sex marriage portends potentially grave consequences to religious liberty (other than the probably-remote prospect that the government will ever force religions to perform ceremonies for gays ... though the government dictating religious practice to a church is not without precedent: see Reynolds v. United States) that the legalization of abortion has not and will not, and that's one of the primary reasons why so many of the Brethren are concerned about it.  Rightly so.

Oh I still think the threat to religious liberty due to SSM is overblown. So someone has to bake a cake for SSM marriage? Was their religious liberty really denied? Should an evangelical baker be able to deny baking a cake for a Mormon temple marriage if it is to offensive to their religious views?

[Crypto]

Oh I still think the threat to religious liberty due to SSM is overblown. So someone has to bake a cake for SSM marriage? Was their religious liberty really denied? Should an evangelical baker be able to deny baking a cake for a Mormon temple marriage if it is to offensive to their religious views?

I actually think that it is abhorrent to dictate peoples lives and morals by force. It's wrong for someone, or the government to force them to.

Whether I think it's right or not for someone to arbitrarily decide if they want to refuse service is another story.

[carbon dioxide]

Oh I still think the threat to religious liberty due to SSM is overblown. So someone has to bake a cake for SSM marriage? Was their religious liberty really denied? Should an evangelical baker be able to deny baking a cake for a Mormon temple marriage if it is to offensive to their religious views?

Baking a cake or selling flowers I would not have a problem with since it is a simple transaction that does not require to leave the shop.  The area I would be concerned about is photography since that would require to actually attend the wedding itself.  In that area, I think it is an unreasonable burden to place on a person.

[rockpond]

How about an option for thinking they have the same seriousness?

Very sad to me that anyone thinks two gay persons making a loving commitment to each other is on par with the killing of a child.

[Robert F. Smith]

I was giving my opinion.  I base it not a study and I understand they are separate issues but I base it on a mind set and I think I would be right.  Just look at the political parties.  Which party strongly favors legal abortion?  Which party strongly favors gay marriage.  I do believe there is a significant overlap of the people who would support both.

You may have missed the fact that it is not the favoring of either position, but rather the love of the Constitution which motivates a particular political party to favor tolerance for a variety of minority behaviors, and to willingly submit ajudication of such matters to the U.S. Supreme Court.  This party also favors the strict separation of Church and state, again in accordance with Constitutional law.  We must not allow ourselves to be governed by any one group's totalitarian version of Sharia Law.

 

People I know who do not like abortion or same sex marriage, nevertheless support the Constitutional rights of those availing themselves of those services.  It is called "tolerance," not approval.  It is for the same reason that the LDS Church officially supports fair housing, fair employment, and equal opportunity for all minorities in Salt Lake City.  Why?  Because it is the right thing to do.

[jkwilliams]

Very sad to me that anyone thinks two gay persons making a loving commitment to each other is on par with the killing of a child.

The more I look at it, the less I see societal harm coming from same-sex marriage. It changes nothing for heterosexual marriages, has no impact on religious teachings and practices, and promotes commitment among gay couples. I don't understand the fear-mongering about how same-sex marriage is going to destroy society as we know it.

Abortion is another matter entirely. I can't imagine ever consenting to an abortion, let alone encouraging someone to have an abortion, but it's been legal since 1973, and there's no way Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Better to spend our time working toward reducing the incidence of abortion, which would involve more access to birth control and education. And if we want more children born out of wedlock, then we should be prepared to provide assistance to single parents so that we don't have another generation of neglected and abused kids living in poverty.

[thesometimesaint]

Pretty interesting to me you think: 1) SSM contributes to societal "degradation" (your second sentence quoted above) and that, 2) you really don't care about it (your first sentence quoted above).

 

Independent of whether you're right or wrong--I've long held a theory that those who think society, culture, humanity, etc., are getting worse & worse (as many LDS appear to think) are likely to be the least effective advocating and implementing useful change & thereby being a blessing to anyone.  They stop fighting injustice because they think the matter was settled in 1973 (or whenever, depending on the issue).  Perhaps in extreme cases they even hope injustice will persist & not be overturned--thereby justifying their decision to do nothing (because, you know, it's all going to hell-in-a-hand-basket anyhow).

 

I'll try to develop the idea into a more coherent thread-topic in the coming weeks.  

 

--Erik    

 

We have long experience with jerks that want to criminalize LDS beliefs and behaviors.

[Danzo]

Neither major political party favors abortion or SSM. One wants to criminalize them, and the other believes it is none of your business. 

 

 

Making something illegal does not mean making it a crime.  Most things that are illegal are not crimes.

 

The law could easily be used to make abortions illegal without making it crime.

[jkwilliams]

Making something illegal does not mean making it a crime.  Most things that are illegal are not crimes.

 

The law could easily be used to make abortions illegal without making it crime.

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a crime in many jurisdictions. Anti-abortion laws became prevalent in the early-to-mid-1800s, and by 1900, abortion was a felony in every state. From everything I know, most pro-life groups want to extend due process rights to unborn children. In that case, abortion would be the same as murder, I would imagine.

[thesometimesaint]

Making something illegal does not mean making it a crime.  Most things that are illegal are not crimes.

 

The law could easily be used to make abortions illegal without making it crime.

 

 

Illegal means crime.

SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime

 

Even if you remove any/all of the penalties crimes by definition are illegal.

 

Even the Church recognizes the need for some abortions.

[Danzo]

Illegal means crime.

SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime

 

Even if you remove any/all of the penalties crimes by definition are illegal.

 

Even the Church recognizes the need for some abortions.

 

Criminal Law is a small specialty field in law.   

 

Breaking most laws creates civil penalties, not criminal ones.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Danzo

[jkwilliams]

Criminal Law is a small specialty field in law.   

 

Breaking most laws creates civil penalties, not criminal ones.

 

Except before Roe, abortion was a felony in every state at one point, thus making it a crime subject to criminal prosecution, not just civil penalties.

[Danzo]

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a crime in many jurisdictions. Anti-abortion laws became prevalent in the early-to-mid-1800s, and by 1900, abortion was a felony in every state. From everything I know, most pro-life groups want to extend due process rights to unborn children. In that case, abortion would be the same as murder, I would imagine.

 

 

But that doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

 

Here are some ways off the top of my head that could limit abortion without making it a crime.

 

1.     Suspend doctor's licenses who perform abortions

 

2.     Allow the father to sue the mother (or doctor)

 

3.     restrict business licenses to the clinics that provide abortions.

 

Each of these would in essence make abortion illegal without making it a crime.

 

I am sure other ideas could be thought of.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Danzo