New Research Reports Most Younger Mormons Now "Strongly Favor" or "Favor" SSM

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Eek! said:

 

It's not just the kids.

I know of at least one fifty-something-years-old lifelong very active Mormon who stopped paying tithing several years ago when she learned (from active fellow Mormons) that tithing funds were being used to support an anti-gay political agenda.  She is not about to the leave the church; she just feels strongly that her donations were misused for something she never would have consented to, so she will not be paying tithing again until she knows that's not going to happen again.  She has nothing against paying fast offering because she knows it won't be misused in that way.   I happen to know this because I'm married to her. 

Seems a silly reason to get burned at the Lord’s Second Coming.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

So you think this is how the church should deal with, now, 40% of it's members?  Interesting.  Thanks for your post.

We need to get it up to 50% to fit the virgins and oil thing.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Duplicate. 

Hey, if it's worth sayin' it's worth sayin' twice!  

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

OK, I have answered it. I favor the states being allowed to decide this under current law. Not the SCOTUS for reasons above. Would I move out of a state which allows SSM to one which does not? I don't know. Do I believe that SSM is simply a matter of choice and equality? No. It has the potential to affect the lives and rights of others - particularly children adopted or otherwise brought into such unions. This issue was addressed by several briefs filed before the SCOTUS by children of SS couples. Epidemics such as AIDS could evolve so as to be a danger to the general public at large. So, I do believe there are legitimate interests to be protected by not expanding marriage rights to SSM. Asking the question as to legality necessarily implies a legal analysis. Beyond this I choose not to discuss my personal feelings on legality, beyond what I think is already evident. I do not read the question as necessarily pertaining to morality.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion on this issue.  But to be clear, the US Constitution trumps all state law.  The U S Supreme Court ruled, based specifically on the Amendment 14 that gay couples had the guaranteed right for equal protection.  If it was just the Supreme Court, then you might have some wiggle room to say that though they are the Supreme Court, it is just their opinion on how this case should be decided.

BUT this same conclusion was drawn by virtually every single federal and district court in numerous states where this case was heard except for one rogue judge in Louisiana.  Your legal opinion that this right is not guaranteed in the U S Constitution goes against all of those judges, including the Mormon Federal Judge in Utah that ruled that the 14 amendment guaranteed such a right to marry.  

In any event, the law has been decided and it seems little value to argue whether your opinion should have trumped all these other federal judges.  You obviously can have that opinion, but legally you are on extremely shaky ground.

[Kenngo1969]

 

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your disdain for the darling little snowflakes is obvious and seems to suggest that you may be the one has struggles with people who disagree.

So the best argument you have against legal SSM is the slippery slope argument? It's no wonder that position is losing support.

I don't have any problems with people who disagree: Viva le difference!  I recognize that my opinions are very likely to be minority opinions on this thread (it is about purportedly-faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage, after all).  I don't have problems with people who support the legalization of same-sex marriage or with the legalization of same-sex marriage per se as much as I do with how it came about and, as a consequence of how it came about, the future implications for religious freedom (but, as I also pointed out earlier, there is a long list of court cases stretching back decades which have serious implications for religious freedom: Obergefell v. Hodges is simply yet another in that long line of decisions.  

I recognize that slippery slope arguments are disfavored among the erudite (accepting, solely for the sake of this discussion, that all I have been doing is engaging in slippery-slope argumentation), and I suppose I should simply bow to your their superior erudition, but, at worst, I don't think that slippery slope arguments are any worse than the sort of ad populum arguments that are being made by most others in this thread.  

What can I say?  I'm just funny that way?!    Cheers!

P.S.: And that's granting the assertion that I was even engaging in slippery slope argumentation, when I've realized upon reflection (what can I say?  I'm slow! ) that I was doing the exact opposite of that: Slippery slope argumentation says, "If future courts follow the precedent set by the majority in Smith v. Jones* (*pseudonyms; no actual litigants were harmed in the making of this post ), in 25 years, this is where we will be, legally speaking."  We can argue whether Obergefell v. Hodges may represent another step in the continued erosion of religious freedom, that's another argument for another day: Rather, I have said that Obergefell v. Hodges is simply another step in a continuing line of court cases eroding religious freedom stretching back decades.

I'm not simply saying, "Oops!  Look out, Happy Jack Wagon!  The slope is slippery here!" I'm pointing out that even if, in retrospect, when we were at the top of that hill, you would have said, "Slippery slope!  Whattaya talkin' about?!  There's no slippery slope here!  I'm surefooted as a mountain goat," your assurances of surefootedness don't do a lot of good now that we've already slid a good way down the hill and are likely to keep slidin'!  It's like the old saying, "It ain't paranoia if they really are out to getcha!" the corollary here being, "Slippery slope appeals are bad argumentation ... except when, in retrospect, they prove to have been right!   (I'm not endorsing paranoia or saying that everyone who's paranoid also is right, or that anybody is out to get anybody else; I'm simply appealing to that saying as a rhetorical device to make my point ...)

Edited May 2, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We need to get it up to 50% to fit the virgins and oil thing.

Well the past two years the change in support of gay marriage was 11% and 12%.  Maybe it will take only one more year for the majority of all Mormons to support gay marriage.  Then I guess the virgins will light up their oil and Christ will come.  Hey that is reason enough to change support for gay marriage, don't you think?  I think it might be a good year to invest in lamp oil futures and asbestos body suits.

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Something on the order of 95% of the little darlings can't even enumerate which freedoms the First Amendment protects

CFR

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well the past two years the change in support of gay marriage was 11% and 12%.  Maybe it will take only one more year for the majority of all Mormons to support gay marriage.  Then I guess the virgins will light up their oil and Christ will come.  Hey that is reason enough to change support for gay marriage, don't you think?  I think it might be a good year to invest in lamp oil futures and asbestos body suits.

I doubt this issue is what the parable is referring to but we have been expecting a great sifting in our ranks. This could be part of it. I hope not but it could be.

[stemelbow]

Quote

Public Religion Research Institute researchers reported this week that LDS opposition to same-sex marriage, legalized in all 50 states in 2015, had dropped by 15 percentage points — from 68 percent in 2013 to 53 percent in 2017. Among younger Mormons, ages 18 to 29, most (52 percent) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.

I continue to be encouraged by the clear changes among Church members, I still think it kind of funny we'll get excited with 52 percent of the young members saying they support same sex marriage.  That means 48% selected opposed.  So somehow 48% oppose the law of the land.  It seems those who oppose same sex marriage and are posting in this thread, and trying to read this as many Mormons are not opposing because it's the law of the land, but that doesn't mean they really support it--as in they still think it's ok.  I'm not sure the mind reading is helping, but I'll feel more encouraged when in a couple years the percentage points change even more in favor of supporting other folks.  If in 4 years the opposition drops another 15 percent...well, that might be just another step in the right direction.  At that rate though, we may see quite a change in the Church in 20 or so years.  

[MiserereNobis]

Nevermind

Edited May 2, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I continue to be encouraged by the clear changes among Church members, I still think it kind of funny we'll get excited with 52 percent of the young members saying they support same sex marriage.  That means 48% selected opposed.  So somehow 48% oppose the law of the land.  It seems those who oppose same sex marriage and are posting in this thread, and trying to read this as many Mormons are not opposing because it's the law of the land, but that doesn't mean they really support it--as in they still think it's ok.  I'm not sure the mind reading is helping, but I'll feel more encouraged when in a couple years the percentage points change even more in favor of supporting other folks.  If in 4 years the opposition drops another 15 percent...well, that might be just another step in the right direction.  At that rate though, we may see quite a change in the Church in 20 or so years.  

I agree (and I'd rep you for this post if I could!!).

There's already been change in the church regarding its teachings about gay members and the recommended treatments.  I'm confident we will see even more changes in the future and I hope it includes doing away with the harmful policy that's been put in place regarding those in SSMs and their children.  We will see....

[LoudmouthMormon]

Several years ago, I made a bet with my atheist buddy.  He figured in 20 years, LDS culture will have changed enough that we'll be doing SSM sealings in the temple.  I bet against that proposition.

The loser must wear a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot".

As the years go by, we touch base on elements that support one side or the other.  Recent General Conference talks emphasizing the Proclamation on the Family and doubling-down on the definition of marriage - point for me.   This study - point for him.

I'm not tutu shopping just yet.

[Kenngo1969]

 

Quote

 

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Something on the order of 95% of the little darlings can't even enumerate which freedoms the First Amendment protects

 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

CFR

Ridiculous.  Everyone on the thread, except for you and the three people (thus far) who have upvoted your request for a CFR understood that I was engaging in hyperbole here (even those who ... and they're likely not few in number ... who disagree with me), but, fine: I retract the 95% figure.  In fact, I retract the entire assertion.

You're right: The vast majority of young people who come to campus each year are well-armed with a keen understanding of constitutional principles and of the history which undergirds them.  They understand very well that one of the very raisons d'etre of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech with which they might disagree and that college campuses (of all places! ) are supposed to be fora for the free exchange of ideas (even of unpopular ones).  Doubtless, all of them have heard, and all of them remember, that old adage, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Yet, inexplicably, notwithstanding their keen understanding of the Constitution, their absolute commitment to free expression, and their commitment to the ideal expressed in the adage contained in my previous sentence, many of them have felt the need to protest, sometimes violently, when the institutions they attend have given people with whom they disagree fora to express ideas about which they disagree.

They're not making any sort of statement regarding commitment to free expression, to the First Amendment, or to other constitutional principles.  

They've simply protested to "blow off steam."  Yeah!  That's it!  Sorry!    I don't know what I was thinking!  My bad!  Mea maxima culpa.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming! Carry on!

 

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Obergefell v. Hodges decision was not decided upon based on the First Amendment.  It was based on the 14th Amendment.  Equal preotection under the law guaranteed in the Constitution.  FYI

 

FYI, as if to say, "Just FYI, since I'm sure you haven't read Obergefell v. Hodges, any other Court decisions impacting the First Amendment, or any constitutional law period ..."

You can never resist condescending to me, can you?  Do you disagree civilly with anyone, or is everyone who disagrees with you simply an unprincipled dolt?Just because Obergefell v. Hodges was not decided on First Amendment grounds does not mean that it has no implications for how courts may (and likely will; after all, I'm sure you won't hesitate to point out to me that THIS Decision (capitalization intentional, for emphasis, since I'm sure to understate its importance otherwise, unprincipled dolt that I am!) was rendered by ...

THE

UNITED 

STATES

SUPREME 

COURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cue thunder!]

And it was ...

UNANIMOUS!  Oh, wait; no, it wasn't.  Sorry; my bad!

It was an 8-1 decis ... Oh, wait; no, it wasn't.  Sorry; my bad again!

It was a 7-2 decis ...  Oh, wait; no, it wasn't.  Sorry; my bad ... again!

It was a 6-3 decis ... Oh, wait; no, it wasn't.  Sorry; my bad ... yet again!  (Man, I'm just having a tough time getting my facts straight!)

Oh, that's right!  It was a 5-4 decision, wasn't it?

(Bah!  All the Justices in the minority are simply unprincipled dolts!)

Edited May 2, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

On SSM? No. Elder Christofferson was very clear on that point. 

 

The clarity of Elder Christofferson's comments were later muddled by the subsequent Handbook policy, at least as applied to LDS members who's own parents are in a same-sex marriage. 

Since the policy, it's my understanding that LDS minors/adults wanting to serve an LDS mission must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage if they have a parent(s) who married to someone of the same gender.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Daniel2

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

FYI, as if to say, "Just FYI, since I'm sure you haven't read Obergefell v. Hodges, any other Court decisions impacting the First Amendment, or any constitutional law period ..."

You can never resist condescending to me, can you?  Do you disagree civilly with anyone, or is everyone who disagrees with you simply an unprincipled dolt?Just because Obergefell v. Hodges was not decided on First Amendment grounds does not mean that it has no implications for how courts may (and likely will; after all, I'm sure you won't hesitate to point out to me that THIS Decision (capitalization intentional, for emphasis, since I'm sure to understate its importance otherwise, unprincipled dolt that I am!) interpret the First Amendment and related provisions going forward.  After all, THIS Decision was rendered by ...

THE

UNITED 

STATES

SUPREME 

COURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cue thunder!]

Someone gets offended easily.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The clarity of Elder Christofferson's comments were later muddled by the subsequent Handbook policy, at least as applied to LDS members who's own parents are in a same-sex marriage. 

Since the policy, it's my understanding that LDS minors/adults wanting to serve an LDS mission must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage.

I don't see the contradiction. Disavowing the practice as contrary to God's plan does not equal opposing legalization. 

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Now shut up and design my "Two Grooms" rainbow cake, bigot!  Or I'll sue you into oblivion!...

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you have any credible evidence that any gay couple who has sued has demonstrated the motivation or characterization in italics above...?

Smac, you are a lawyer.  Do you believe it's possible for citizens who have been unlawfully discriminated against (regardless of the protected class in question) to seek redress from legal injustices, within the bounds the law has rationally proscribed, out of and with calm, rational, and justifiable reasons for doing so, and without embodying the distain in your extremist characterization above?

Or do you assume that anyone who seeks justice under the law only does so out of the hateful/entitled malice in your characterization?

Do you support non-discrimination laws for any protected classes? 

Do you support non-discrimination laws for LGBT citizens?

Daniel

Edited May 2, 2018 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same here.

I approach same-sex marriage in much the same way I approach fornication.  I think it is morally very wrong, but I am not going to publicly "oppose" it, since it doesn't violate the law of the land.  

I think it's possible to disagree, on moral grounds, with something privately, while not opposing it in the public sphere.  Same-sex marriage is here to stay.  It's a fait accompli.

On the other hand, there are things that are not a done deal, and hence can be worked against in the public sphere (such as elective abortion).

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with this.

The live issues at present are how the acceptance of same-sex marriage might encroach upon freedom of speech (whether one may state publicly his belief in traditional marriage without being oppressed for it) and freedom of religion (whether religious groups may hold to and preach their doctrines of traditional marriage without being oppressed for it).

Edited May 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion on this issue.  But to be clear, the US Constitution trumps all state law.  The U S Supreme Court ruled, based specifically on the Amendment 14 that gay couples had the guaranteed right for equal protection.  If it was just the Supreme Court, then you might have some wiggle room to say that though they are the Supreme Court, it is just their opinion on how this case should be decided.

BUT this same conclusion was drawn by virtually every single federal and district court in numerous states where this case was heard except for one rogue judge in Louisiana.  Your legal opinion that this right is not guaranteed in the U S Constitution goes against all of those judges, including the Mormon Federal Judge in Utah that ruled that the 14 amendment guaranteed such a right to marry.  

In any event, the law has been decided and it seems little value to argue whether your opinion should have trumped all these other federal judges.  You obviously can have that opinion, but legally you are on extremely shaky ground.

I clearly realize the Supreme Court's decision trumps state law. I am just saying they are usurping state power, and departing from traditional constitutional law. The Equal Protection Clause is not meant to grant equal rights or benefits to everybody. Not everybody is entitled to state housing. Maybe I should teach these dumb judges a lesson and go apply for Veterans benefits, and free medical care. They will say well you never served as a Vet, and I will say I paid their salaries and responded to my draft registration, and am entitled to the same treatment. The reasons for marriage laws largely do not apply to gays. There are legitimate reasons a state may choose not to grant them certain rights, but the Supreme Court in recent years has been undermining all those reasons including ruling that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. That's on par with deciding that the fed gubbermint can force you to buy insurance,. which may cost more than you make. 

I realize gays have had a stream of victories in the courts. Judges have become much more liberal, and sympathetic - I would venture that has carried down to state attorneys charged with defending these laws. Many judges are quite subject to public opinion as they are voted into office, and do not want to be on the wrong side of history. The Federal system has hollowed out state rights until there is nothing left. States have become mere pawns of federal fiat. If that is what the public wants or plain is just too nonchalant to worry about, then that will be the ultimate end of the states - to serve as federal bureaucracies. However, I think all included, including gays, would be better served by garnering public support for law changes at the state level, rather than trying to convince everybody that there is no rational reason for treating gays differently than a man and wife. On the flip side now the courts have totally opened up the road for polygamy. I guess next will be marriage to adolescents which most leftists on this board seem to routinely mock and attack Joseph Smith for.  Is there a marriage license a state can legally deny?

At first glance my position may seem unfair - we as a society have become so keyed in on "fairness," however, that we don't realize there are legitimate reasons for treating some people differently. I merely strive to point out that there sometimes are. Equal protection does not mean equal rights, but the federal courts have made it so - at least in the case of its newest pet - gay rights. I view a right as being able to force a government to do something. Equal protection has become equivalent to equal rights, but which I view as mostly pertaining to equal application of existing laws. For instance since there is no right to marriage, a state can do away with marriage licenses and marriages. The Equal Protection clause merely requires the state equally apply its existing laws under a rational basis of its police power and power to regulate public welfare, which rights were retained by the states under the 10th amendment, the Supreme Court has seemed to forget about: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The clarity of Elder Christofferson's comments were later muddled by the subsequent Handbook policy, at least as applied to LDS members who's own parents are in a same-sex marriage. 

Since the policy, it's my understanding that LDS minors/adults wanting to serve an LDS mission must disavow the practice of same-sex marriage if they have a parent(s) who married to someone of the same gender.

Had the same exact thought.  

[MiserereNobis]

51 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ridiculous.  Everyone on the thread, except for you and the three people (thus far) who have upvoted your request for a CFR understood that I was engaging in hyperbole here (even those who ... and they're likely not few in number ... who disagree with me), but, fine: I retract the 95% figure.  In fact, I retract the entire assertion.

You're right: The vast majority of young people who come to campus each year are well-armed with a keen understanding of constitutional principles and of the history which undergirds them.  They understand very well that one of the very raisons d'etre of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech with which they might disagree and that college campuses (of all places! ) are supposed to be fora for the free exchange of ideas (even of unpopular ones).  Doubtless, all of them have heard, and all of them remember, that old adage, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Yet, inexplicably, notwithstanding their keen understanding of the Constitution, their absolute commitment to free expression, and their commitment to the ideal expressed in the adage contained in my previous sentence, many of them have felt the need to protest, sometimes violently, when the institutions they attend have given people with whom they disagree fora to express ideas about which they disagree.

They're not making any sort of statement regarding commitment to free expression, to the First Amendment, or to other constitutional principles.  

Making fun of people using hyperbole is not a very effective way to dialogue. It actually makes you come off as someone who doesn't have anything serious to add to the conversation other than italics and emojis.

It's much better to have a substantive conversation without sarcasm. I guess you don't agree or you'd change the way you post.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Making fun of people using hyperbole is not a very effective way to dialogue. It actually makes you come off as someone who doesn't have anything serious to add to the conversation other than italics and emojis.

It's much better to have a substantive conversation without sarcasm. I guess you don't agree or you'd change the way you post.

If you don't think I have anything serious to add to the discussion, you're welcome to put me on [IGNORE].  Good day.

[Kenngo1969]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

Someone gets offended easily.

 

[Yes, Miserere Nobis, I just made another completely-substance-free post!  Sue me!]

P.S.: Yeah, well, what can I say?  Perhaps I am a little touchy when people (by implication if not by saying so outright) conclude that, somehow, I cannot read or cannot understand the law simply because I disagree with how they read it or understand it.  I'd like to think ... even if it means that I'm wrong, delusional, stupid, et cetera ... that my law degree actually is worth something.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/law-school-transparency/

Edited May 2, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[ksfisher]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

 

[Yes, Miserere Nobis, I just made another completely-substance-free post!  Sue me!]

So you're admitting to being the Diet Coke of posters!