The Church speaks up on SSM again

[stemelbow]

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

Quote

Second, we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage substantially reduces the space available to people of faith who have traditional beliefs about marriage and family.  For members of the Church, marriage between a man and woman has always been core doctrine.  In places where same-sex marriage is now legal, our ability to remain true to all aspects of that doctrine is now increasingly challenged.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

[James Tunney]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

It's nonsense.  This is part of defending against blowback for their positions against the small LGBTQ minority. 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

It's an incoherent statement from the newsroom, I'm sorry to say. The amount of "space" the church has has not changed. The amount of space for gay couples has increased, while not affecting the church in any legal way. A win/win for everyone. 

Quote

our ability to remain true to all aspects of that doctrine is now increasingly challenged.

If that were true, I'd expect the anti gay marriage rhetoric to have stopped. 

[hope_for_things]

Thanks for posting this, I must have missed the announcement about this newsroom piece.  

I read the entire link they have for the space comment, and I think its thesis is saying the exact opposite.  It said that people are getting to removed from the societies they live in, and that people are too isolated and separated from their communities.  Wouldn't that be the opposite of providing space for people with different views?  It seems like they are encouraging people with different views to interact with each other to better tolerate and appreciate each other, not to create space between each other, makes no sense to me.  

The other thing this does is sends a message that those who oppose same-sex marriage, aren't willing to tolerate and interact with those who support it.  That somehow this causes someone opposed to same-sex marriage, a challenge to "remain true to all aspects of that doctrine."  What does this mean?  How is someone's ability to remain true to their personal beliefs hindered in anyway? 

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Quote

Second, we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage substantially reduces the space available to people of faith who have traditional beliefs about marriage and family.  For members of the Church, marriage between a man and woman has always been core doctrine.  In places where same-sex marriage is now legal, our ability to remain true to all aspects of that doctrine is now increasingly challenged

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks.

Oh, come on.

You know exactly what this means although I agree it is written in horribly vague PR speak.

The examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous.  The space for the wedding photographer to refuse to help memorialize a SSM is gone.  LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs.
There may come a time when the LDS Church no longer feels it has the space to perform legal marriages but only sealings.  Who knows?

There is no longer space to restrict public restrooms based on biology.  There is less and less space to restrict your children from being taught incorrect principles in our public schools.
Space to remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily.
 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, come on.

You know exactly what this means although I agree it is written in horribly vague PR speak.

The examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous.  The space for the wedding photographer to refuse to help memorialize a SSM is gone.  LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs.
There may come a time when the LDS Church no longer feels it has the space to perform legal marriages but only sealings.  Who knows?

There is no longer space to restrict public restrooms based on biology.  There is less and less space to restrict your children from being taught incorrect principles in our public schools.
Space to remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily.
 

If you believe that remaining true to doctrine, is tied to the discriminatory practices you listed above, then yes, I agree.  

I don't find any necessary links between staying true to doctrine and the above examples of minor changes that some people will have to adjust to now that SSM is legal.  

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, come on.

You know exactly what this means although I agree it is written in horribly vague PR speak.

The examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous.  The space for the wedding photographer to refuse to help memorialize a SSM is gone.  LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs.
There may come a time when the LDS Church no longer feels it has the space to perform legal marriages but only sealings.  Who knows?

There is no longer space to restrict public restrooms based on biology.  There is less and less space to restrict your children from being taught incorrect principles in our public schools.
Space to remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily.
 

What you're talking about is giving gay people equal rights to straight people. Progress has been made, but you can still be fired in many states for being gay. Legally gay people are still not on an even playing field, and religious conservatives are acting as if they've been clapped in irons because they can't discriminate against gay people in every aspect of their life. 

Imagine a PR piece like this from the 60s, lamenting the lack of space the church had to express its views on race after the civil rights act. 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

What you're talking about is giving gay people equal rights to straight people. Progress has been made, but you can still be fired in many states for being gay.

That's not what I am talking about at all.  And I think being fired for being gay (with a  few exceptions) is completely wrong.

Quote

Legally gay people are still not on an even playing field, and religious conservatives are acting as if they've been clapped in irons because they can't discriminate against gay people in every aspect of their life.

Imagine a PR piece like this from the 60s, lamenting the lack of space the church had to express its views on race after the civil rights act.

Not wanting my children to be taught incorrect teachings or to see SS relationships as normal and without sin is not discrimination.  It's my spiritual belief and I have every right to not want my family taught something I consider wrong.

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you believe that remaining true to doctrine, is tied to the discriminatory practices you listed above, then yes, I agree.

I don't find any necessary links between staying true to doctrine and the above examples of minor changes that some people will have to adjust to now that SSM is legal.

Then you need to look a little harder.
 

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, come on.

You know exactly what this means although I agree it is written in horribly vague PR speak.

The examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous.  The space for the wedding photographer to refuse to help memorialize a SSM is gone.  LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs.
There may come a time when the LDS Church no longer feels it has the space to perform legal marriages but only sealings.  Who knows?

There is no longer space to restrict public restrooms based on biology.  There is less and less space to restrict your children from being taught incorrect principles in our public schools.
Space to remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily.
 

LDS Family Services still provides adoption services.

SEE https://providentliving.lds.org/lds-family-services/adoption?lang=eng

As long as any church, synagogue, mosque, Temple, etc. etc., etc., can perform legal marriages so will the LDS.

If you serve the public you can't legally discriminate against the public.

How is remaining true to your doctrine infringed by someone else remaining true to their doctrine?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

LDS Family Services still provides adoption services.

SEE https://providentliving.lds.org/lds-family-services/adoption?lang=eng

Sorry, I should have said adoption agency services.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605313/LDS-Family-Services-shifts-from-adoption-agency-to-adoption-counseling.html

 

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

As long as any church, synagogue, mosque, Temple, etc. etc., etc., can perform legal marriages so will the LDS.

That will depend on what course lawsuits and legal changes take.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not wanting my children to be taught incorrect teachings or to see SS relationships as normal and without sin is not discrimination.  It's my spiritual belief and I have every right to not want my family taught something I consider wrong.

 

Of course, but how could you possibly prevent your children from hearing positive messages about gay marriage? It can't be done without revoking the first amendment right to free speech.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not wanting my children to be taught incorrect teachings or to see SS relationships as normal and without sin is not discrimination.  It's my spiritual belief and I have every right to not want my family taught something I consider wrong.

Are you not in favor of separation of church and state?  I don't want schools to preference any particular religious views on this topic or other similar ones.  

The thing I don't think you're grasping is that the world has changed, and you've got to readjust.  SSM is now "normal" because the majority of society accepts it as normal.  There will always be differing viewpoints on almost every subject out there, and I'm not saying you have to personally or religiously agree with them.  The tide has changed for the majority, and normal has been redefined, agree with the direction or not, its reality.   

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you not in favor of separation of church and state?  I don't want schools to preference any particular religious views on this topic or other similar ones.  

No, I'm not.  The principle has been turned on its head from its intent and misapplied.

Quote

The thing I don't think you're grasping is that the world has changed, and you've got to readjust.  SSM is now "normal" because the majority of society accepts it as normal.  There will always be differing viewpoints on almost every subject out there, and I'm not saying you have to personally or religiously agree with them.  The tide has changed for the majority, and normal has been redefined, agree with the direction or not, its reality.

The thing I don't think you're grasping is that this change to the world is temporary and adjusting our standards and principles is not the right answer.

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

Lawsuits generally don't change laws. Bills of Attainder like a proposed  law removing the rights of a class of people are forbidden by our laws.
A case could be made for removing that ability from all religions, but not for removing it from just one. IE; In England all marriages must be done by the government, after that any religious ceremony can be done at the couples discretion. 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Of course, but how could you possibly prevent your children from hearing positive messages about gay marriage? It can't be done without revoking the first amendment right to free speech.

I am not trying to silence the speech of others, but to prevent being forced to listen to it.

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I am not trying to silence the speech of others, but to prevent being forced to listen to it.

What the heck are you talking about?

[carbon dioxide]

"In places where same-sex marriage is now legal, our ability to remain true to all aspects of that doctrine is now increasingly challenged."

I don't see how this is true.  Whether prostitution, drugs, porn, and other things legal or not, it should not have any affect on whether we have the ability to remain true to all aspects of any doctrine.  We don't base our doctrine on what courts or public opinion polls say or even what the law says.   I believe the Church has spend way to much time on this issue and needs to move on to other things.  There was a time when the Church spoke a lot about food storage but now it almost never does.  I guess they feel they addressed that issue enough.  I think the Church has addressed the SSM issue enough too.  I think the members get it.  The Lord is against SSM and the practice is against the doctrines of the Church.  Do we really need more on it?

Edited July 6, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

What the heck are you talking about?

Pro-SSM is all over the TV.  Easy enough to change the channel.

Kids in a public school classroom have no such ability.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Pro-SSM is all over the TV.  Easy enough to change the channel.

Kids in a public school classroom have no such ability.

I don't see much of it on TV.  Kids can't be taught a lot of crap in schools on a lot of issues including history and politics.  Parents need to stay involved with the kids to weed out the trash they do hear in school.  We need to teach our kids that not everything they teach in school is correct.  As parents they have the primary responsibility to teaching and should not outsource this responsibility to the schools or government.

Edited July 6, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am not trying to silence the speech of others, but to prevent being forced to listen to it.

What context are you thinking of here?

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I'm not.  The principle has been turned on its head from its intent and misapplied.

I'm not talking about original intent, but thats hard to determine anyway, there wasn't a consensus by the founders in the first place.  

 

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The think I don't think you're grasping is that this change to the world is temporary and adjusting our standards and principles is not the right answer.

Temporary, yes, all things are temporary in this temporal world.   Its reality though, that's my point.  Regardless whether you agree with it or not, it shapes the current world you live in, and arguably will for a very long time into the future (this seems like the current trend).  Take away the value judgments on whether you agree with the decision or not.  Its reality and its the new normal.   

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman.  Here is one I want to ask about:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility

Anyone want to help me understand what this means?  What space?  Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space?  How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage?

This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this.

Thanks. 

Nonsense? Human connection is an intimate process; like connects with like (D&C 88:40). From the “space” link, “More than laws or legislatures, the affections of the heart are the glue that holds society together.”

Considering the full interplay of all human attributes, as well as the human limitations of those attributes, the level of activity and space in which they perform is of necessity fairly small (couples, families, communities, etc.). We can only personally interact with so many people on a day-to-day, human-to-human basis. This is how and why exceptionally Christlike people get to be known; like Christ, benevolent human interaction comes first and foremost in their interactions with many people.

The further out we branch our relationships (unless we are as Christ), the more virtual the relationships and by extension the community become, and the less fully human and meaningful they become. Some branching out is necessary for larger communities and nations to function, but when processes and systems become substitutes for human interaction, these more virtual and external forms of interaction and relationship become forces that impede the smaller individual, family and community conscience.

The article is saying that certain broad, legalized practices impose their own brand of isolated (non-intimate) perspective onto the smaller human communities where freedom is actually lived and is most intimately expressed and protected, and thus impede these smaller communities’ ability to thrive. Thus the call for greater balance on a human level of practice (of "patience, collaboration and hard work"). Hence the support for the constitutional guarantee of special protection for religious freedom.

Edited July 6, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It said that people are getting to removed from the societies they live in, and that people are too isolated and separated from their communities.

Yes, they get removed from the intimate society and band together with the forces of the larger virtual society (automatic, system-behaving society) and strengthen them at the expense of the more personally human-behaving societies. It is hyper-elevating the systematic checks-and-balances to the status of the actual humanity they are to protect.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, come on.

You know exactly what this means although I agree it is written in horribly vague PR speak.

The examples of people not being allowed to disapprove of SSM in their daily lives are numerous.  The space for the wedding photographer to refuse to help memorialize a SSM is gone. 

Please help me understand this.  I'm sure it's frustrating.  I'm at a loss how to apply this to the quote, though.  What space is no longer available?   

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs.

Why did they no longer have space to create such?  People still adopt, even families with only a mom and dad.  Hello, JLH, I'm such a dad. 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There may come a time when the LDS Church no longer feels it has the space to perform legal marriages but only sealings.  Who knows?

But what they feel may be quite different than what they are really granted in terms of space.  We really can't argue this based on our feelings.  This feels like some average person saying, "I dont' feel comfortable shopping at our local grocery store, because there are people there.  So do something for me." 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There is no longer space to restrict public restrooms based on biology.

Which seems to have nothing to do with legalizing SSM. 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

  There is less and less space to restrict your children from being taught incorrect principles in our public schools.

Less than when?  I was taught incorrect principles my whole school life.  I dont' know if there's any less space for such restrictions.  It's always been.  Teachers aren't perfect. 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Space to remain true to our doctrine is being shrunk daily.
 

I don't see how.  I see people feeling like their voice is less impactful when it comes to these issues.  But that doesn't equate to not being able to be true to beliefs. 

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nonsense? Human connection is an intimate process; like connects with like (D&C 88:40). From the “space” link, “More than laws or legislatures, the affections of the heart are the glue that holds society together.”

Considering the full interplay of all human attributes, as well as the human limitations of those attributes, the level of activity and space in which they perform is of necessity fairly small (couples, families, communities, etc.). We can only personally interact with so many people on a day-to-day, human-to-human basis. This is how and why exceptionally Christlike people get to be known; like Christ, benevolent human interaction comes first and foremost in their interactions with many people.

The further out we branch our relationships (unless we are as Christ), the more virtual the relationships and by extension the community become, and the less fully human and meaningful they become. Some branching out is necessary for larger communities and nations to function, but when processes and systems become substitutes for human interaction, these more virtual and external forms of interaction and relationship become forces that impede the smaller individual, family and community conscience.

The article is saying that certain broad, legalized practices impose their own brand of isolated (non-intimate) perspective onto the smaller human communities where freedom is actually lived and is most intimately expressed and protected, and thus impede these smaller communities’ ability to thrive. Thus the call for greater balance on a human level of practice (of "patience, collaboration and hard work"). Hence the support for the constitutional guarantee of special protection for religious freedom.

eh.....huh?  Do you produce for Mormonnewsroom? 

Quote

The article is saying that certain broad, legalized practices impose their own brand of isolated (non-intimate) perspective onto the smaller human communities where freedom is actually lived and is most intimately expressed and protected, and thus impede these smaller communities’ ability to thrive

Smaller human communities are impeded because other's don't want to listen?  or because the majority opinion disagrees?