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

[Meadowchik]

I am not really willing to go toe to toe against you on this issue. Like I said, the comparison between the two issues are not exactly comparable, but I gave you my points on how they are comparible.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the church didn't make such a big deal out of the abortion ballot measure. But what is startiling is the church made NO issue out of the abortion ballot measure.

But we don't really know, though, do we? The one article from that time that I found on it--it was through the same one you cited but the only one that came up when I looked with my own search terms--was not what we'd call an example of stellar reporting. Edited October 21, 2015 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

Well, when one comes up that has potential to be a gamechanger, let's see what happens, shall we?

 

I just pointed it out to you!

 

The Personhood Amendments certainly could be approached in the same way that the Brethren approached gay marriage.  But they haven't chosen to do that.  That's the point.

[jkwilliams]

I just pointed it out to you!

The Personhood Amendments certainly could be approached in the same way that the Brethren approached gay marriage. But they haven't chosen to do that. That's the point.

I was thinking of the personhood amendments, too, but I can't imagine the church supporting them because by definition, there would be no exceptions allowing abortion. That conflicts with church teachings.

[Meadowchik]

I just pointed it out to you!

The Personhood Amendments certainly could be approached in the same way that the Brethren approached gay marriage. But they haven't chosen to do that. That's the point.

Well, like you said, you expect them to be seers. Maybe they don't see the opportunity yet.

To really call them on it, imo, we'd need to see a personhood amendment pick up steam in a majority of states, battle within thin margins, and then NOT see the Church make a huge effort.

I don't see anything so far that has come up like that. The public opinion on abortion has been steady for decades. However, that could change. Maybe that opportunity where that "dry kindling" (what ond book author calls the political mobilisable force of the Church) could make the difference will come up in our lifetimes.

I think a 20 week ban would be a good start. The US has quite liberal abortion laws compared to other nations.

[Meadowchik]

I was thinking of the personhood amendments, too, but I can't imagine the church supporting them because by definition, there would be no exceptions allowing abortion. That conflicts with church teachings.

It would make the exceptions for rape and incest harder to establish, but the exception for imminent danger to the mother would still be workable, I think.

But, your point does underscore yet another difference between the two issues ssm and abortion. The Church may find a lot more trouble building political momentum with its exceptions for rape and incest.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

I was thinking of the personhood amendments, too, but I can't imagine the church supporting them because by definition, there would be no exceptions allowing abortion. That conflicts with church teachings.

 

They could help craft the initiatives.

 

And Prop 8 violated church teachings as well.  Didn't stop them.

[rockpond]

Well, like you said, you expect them to be seers. Maybe they don't see the opportunity yet.

To really call them on it, imo, we'd need to see a personhood amendment pick up steam in a majority of states, battle within thin margins, and then NOT see the Church make a huge effort.

I don't see anything so far that has come up like that. The public opinion on abortion has been steady for decades. However, that could change. Maybe that opportunity where that "dry kindling" (what ond book author calls the political mobilisable force of the Church) could make the difference will come up in our lifetimes.

I think a 20 week ban would be a good start. The US has quite liberal abortion laws compared to other nations.

 

So is that your answer to the thread's main question?  They don't see the opportunity yet?

 

It was the Brethren who helped the anti-gay marriage battle pick up steam (as I mentioned, beginning in HI back in the 90's).  They could form and help staff and organization (like NOM) to help propel it forward.  They could assist in writing legislation.

 

The same options are available to them with abortion that were available regarding gay marriage.

 

But if your answer is that they "just don't see the opportunity" than I will accept that.

[Meadowchik]

So is that your answer to the thread's main question? They don't see the opportunity yet?

It was the Brethren who helped the anti-gay marriage battle pick up steam (as I mentioned, beginning in HI back in the 90's). They could form and help staff and organization (like NOM) to help propel it forward. They could assist in writing legislation.

The same options are available to them with abortion that were available regarding gay marriage.

But if your answer is that they "just don't see the opportunity" than I will accept that.

All I can say is that I don't see a similar opportunity, past or present. So to me, I don't feel uncomfortable about the differences in political action. I do believe that the Church has put forth much effort regarding both, but in different ways.

But, you should keep the point about personhood and exceptions in mind...that's one way the Church splits from many other pro-lifers. I never thought much of that until seeing a pro-life protestor at Temple Square. It was shocking, I was thinking that we ARE pro-life. But because of the exceptions for rape and incest, not everyone thinks so.

[jkwilliams]

They could help craft the initiatives.

And Prop 8 violated church teachings as well. Didn't stop them.

Honestly, what bothered me the most wasn't that the church backed Prop 8. It was that so many Mormon friends loudly proclaimed how proud they were to be leading the effort, but as soon as there was backlash, they acted as if the church played only a minor role. Maybe it was just people I know, but it was kind of ridiculous.

[Meadowchik]

Honestly, what bothered me the most wasn't that the church backed Prop 8. It was that so many Mormon friends loudly proclaimed how proud they were to be leading the effort, but as soon as there was backlash, they acted as if the church played only a minor role. Maybe it was just people I know, but it was kind of ridiculous.

That would be ironic. However, there could be some genuine pain in that. Some Prop 8 supporters soon found out loved ones felt wounded by their support.

[rockpond]

Some Prop 8 supporters soon found out loved ones felt wounded by their support.

 

I lived in California during Prop 22 (Prop 8's predecessor).  Church leaders were asking members to donate financially, post yards signs, and campaign door-to-door.  It was a frequent topic in church meetings.  I donated and participated as asked (except I didn't post a yard sign because I lived in an apartment at the time).  Our stake experienced a horrible tragedy during that time... a young man, returned missionary, gay, active, temple recommend holder committed suicide and left behind a note explaining that he could no longer reconcile his faith with his sexual orientation.

 

But, I think as a church we have grown a lot in the 15 years since then.

[Meadowchik]

I lived in California during Prop 22 (Prop 8's predecessor). Church leaders were asking members to donate financially, post yards signs, and campaign door-to-door. It was a frequent topic in church meetings. I donated and participated as asked (except I didn't post a yard sign because I lived in an apartment at the time). Our stake experienced a horrible tragedy during that time... a young man, returned missionary, gay, active, temple recommend holder committed suicide and left behind a note explaining that he could no longer reconcile his faith with his sexual orientation.

But, I think as a church we have grown a lot in the 15 years since then.

I sure hope so! Listening to this last GC, it seems to me good growth is being taught and encouraged.

[carbon dioxide]

How can you even compare 2 consenting adults having equal rights and the murdering of innocent unborn children? Of course abortions are worse.

Legally both are considered fine.  In terms of the laws of God, whether the parties involve consent to the sin or not really does not matter.  Prostitution consists of at least 2 consenting parties but it does not matter. 

[carbon dioxide]

I lived in California during Prop 22 (Prop 8's predecessor).  Church leaders were asking members to donate financially, post yards signs, and campaign door-to-door.  It was a frequent topic in church meetings.  I donated and participated as asked (except I didn't post a yard sign because I lived in an apartment at the time).  Our stake experienced a horrible tragedy during that time... a young man, returned missionary, gay, active, temple recommend holder committed suicide and left behind a note explaining that he could no longer reconcile his faith with his sexual orientation.

 

But, I think as a church we have grown a lot in the 15 years since then.

It is sad that anyone would commit suicide but the Church and people as individuals can't make decisions on whether somebody might commit suicide as a result.

[rockpond]

It is sad that anyone would commit suicide but the Church and people as individuals can't make decisions on whether somebody might commit suicide as a result.

 

Really?  We can't think about how a given policy or teaching will impact people?  We can't consider whether something might drive children to kill themselves?

 

I think we can.  And should.

[KevinG]

Really?  We can't think about how a given policy or teaching will impact people?  We can't consider whether something might drive children to kill themselves?

 

I think we can.  And should.

 

He didn't say we cannot or should not think about it. 

 

He said it was sad that we had to do so.

 

I find it tragically beyond sad that someone would choose to end their life over a decision that was out of their control.  Those individuals don't need sympathy or validation that suicide is an answer or even a credible threat, they need help from a therapist.

Edited November 16, 2015 by KevinG

[rockpond]

He didn't say we cannot or should not think about it. 

 

He said it was sad that we had to do so.

 

I find it tragically beyond sad that someone would choose to end their life over a decision that was out of their control.  Those individuals don't need sympathy or validation that suicide is an answer or even a credible threat, they need help from a therapist.

 

No, he said "can't".  Here is his exact quote:

 

"It is sad that anyone would commit suicide but the Church and people as individuals can't make decisions on whether somebody might commit suicide as a result." (emphasis mine)

 

I also find it tragically sad.  The past week and a half has been rough.

[jaberwocky]

I'm just glad that my parents participated in neither SSM or abortion, or I wouldn't be here.

[Daniel2]

I've never met a homosexual who wouldn't be heterosexual if given the choice.

 

Hi, Jaberwocky,

I recognize you're new here to MDD.  There are a few of us who are former members of the LDS Church who have left the Faith and now live our lives openly in same-sex relationships.  For example, I know you’ve already interacted with CaliforniaBoy.

 

My husband and I married a year ago December.  We are both RMs, married our former wives in the Salt Lake Temple, and graduated from BYU, having served in a variety of church callings throughout our lives, including Elders’ and High Priests Quorum presidencies and bishoprics. 

 

We’ve both been out for over a decade, and have many gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances, both local and all over the world, and of whom some are former Latter-day Saints and many who have no experience with Mormonism at all.  Virtually ALL of our openly-gay friends and acquaintances most definitely would NOT “be heterosexual if given the choice."

 

There certainly was a time in our lives when your description would have fit me: when I was deeply committed to the church, deeply closeted, deathly afraid of shame…  afraid of contracting HIV… afraid of the moral depravity that I had always been told that gay men “sunk” to… afraid of living alone, unfulfilled, without family, and ultimately afraid of dying earlier than most and probably alone from debilitating STD’s, drug-use, and certainly beyond the reach of any sort of divine grace.

 

When the above fear-based paradigm (or something similar) shapes any given homosexual’s personal, social, and religious internal narrative about what it must mean to live “The Gay Lifestyle™,”  it is understandable that he/she would clamor to "be heterosexual if given a choice.” 

 

(NOTE: I hope it goes without saying that there is no such thing as “The Gay Lifestyle™,” just as there is no such thing as “The Straight Lifestyle™.”)

 

Thankfully, once I broke through such fears, I found an amazing and fulfilling life on the other side.

 

Today, my life is replete with blessings, one of which includes the enormous happiness and joy I receive from my loving, mutually-fulfilling relationship with a husband I never could have imagined—and certainly on a level neither he nor I experienced when we were married to women and incongruent with the gift of our innate sexual orientations.  I live a life full of supportive family, friends, children, grandchildren, coworkers, and loving members of a very gay-affirming religious congregation in a Faith I never would have considered while wearing my former, self-fashioned, fear-based blinders.

 

If you were to meet our many friends and acquaintances, you would hear many such personal testimonials.

 

As an openly gay man happily married to an amazing husband, it’s my privilege to be the first of hopefully many you may meet in life who would emphatically decline being or "becoming heterosexual if given the choice.”

 

If you think the Church will ever be accepting of living a homosexual lifestyle you have absolutely no understanding of the doctrine.

 

May I respectfully suggest that many of us who are gay and have spent decades of time studying and likely elevated levels of efforts to apply the gospel in our lives to fully understand its doctrines.

 

Further, I would suggest that those of us who are gay and lesbian (or have gay and/or lesbian family

members) have an elevated and invested interest far greater than our straight counterparts in pondering and attempting to discern how committed, monogamous, and reciprocal same-gender relationships could fit into a gospel setting and align with LDS doctrines, including the eternal nature of God’s family.

 

Finally, I would submit that there are logical, sensible, compassionate, and inclusive answers by which eternal, post-mortal, non-procreative, and committed same-gender relationships could perfectly align with LDS doctrines.

 

Accusing others of a failure to understand presumes the end of the dialogue.  I suppose that stance is what Christ referred to when he spoke of those “who have ears to hear,” and “eyes to see.”

 

Why do supporters of homosexual unions always assume that the doctrine is contained in that passage in Ezekiel?  The Church does not rely on the Old Testament for modern doctrine.  That's why we have prophets today.  Nothing about homosexuality makes sense in the context of the purpose of being sent to earth.

 

Many of those of us who support same-gender unions have attempted to identify any modern revelation from LDS prophets existing today revealing any doctrines that definitively demonstrate that God does not and could never support or authorize same-gender unions. 

 

I and many others still haven’t found any such revelation, but I'm open to hearing where you think it can be found...

Edited November 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

I'm just glad that my parents participated in neither SSM or abortion, or I wouldn't be here.

 

My understanding of LDS doctrine is that, yes, you would be here (eventually). The difference is that those people wouldn't be your parents. Have you been taught otherwise?