As goes Iowa, So goes the Nation
First off, Happy Birthday to mfranti! Yay! Now for the other important news of the day, the Iowa Supreme Court decided in favor of same-sex marriage today.
This post isn’t about the merits of same-sex marriage, however. Rather, it’s about why I’ve felt so personally affected by the Church’s activism against same-sex marriage. I’m not in a same-sex relationship (at the moment anyway), but the Church’s efforts against same-sex families in California have left me furious. Livid. Incensed. And very, very, VERY angry. I think I finally understand why.
Being gay in the Church is like being a woman in the Church. Let me recognize, however, that gays have had it far, far worse than women. The psychological and spiritual damage inflicted upon gay members by the Church’s highest (and lowest) leadership is unforgiveable.
But these attitudes are thankfully, though grudgingly, changing. Instead of being told they are broken and corrupt for their evil thoughts and behavior, gays are told that ”the Church” accepts you and loves you. But. Don’t even THINK about establishing a committed, loving relationship with a partner. Don’t even THINK about having a partner! The Church may love you, but unless you can sit quietly in your pew and pretend to be just like the rest of us normal people, well, there’s no real place for you here.
Likewise, women are told that ”the Church” loves and accepts women. But don’t even THINK about stepping outside of your prescribed role of being a nurturing mother (or mother-like figure) who upholds, but does not hold, the priesthood. If you do, then you’ll be smothered in sweet platitudes about equal partnership and how much we treasure our women, and don’t you want to experience the joy of eternal families (that may or may not include you sharing your husband with other wives)?
The Church wisely and selectively exercises its political muscles to hurt people who don’t fall nicely in line with the modeled “traditional” family of a male provider and a female nurturer. Thirty years ago, the Church squelched the efforts of those who fought for equal rights for women because women don’t need equal rights when God loves men and women just the same. Don’t worry too much that men have “presiding authority” over women. Men and women are equal partners. How much more simple can it be? If you have a problem with the status quo, you’re not living your life in tune with the spirit. Maybe you need to pray and read your scriptures more.
That’s why I feel so angry that the Church is now fighting against same-sex families, even as the Church professes its love for gays. And that’s why I’m so happy with the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision today.
good analogy. I agree. I don’t think I had put the two together in that way before.
last sunday the woman who gave the opening prayer in sacrament meeting said how thankful we are for the men and boys who hold the priesthood. not a word about the women. I told the teenage girls I work with that my inner feminist was very uncomfortable. they nodded.
ARGGGGGG!!!!!
Comment by venus — April 3, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Hey, today is mfranti’s b-day? It’s mine too. Awesome.
Comment by Starfoxy — April 3, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
ECS,
Wow. So well written. Thanks.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 3, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Some interesting logic, but your post shows that you don’t really understand (or accept) Mormon theology. Same-sex marriage is simply absolutely impossible in Mormon theology. Marriage with accompanying sexual relations is a holy, godlike state. As far as we understand, God doesn’t have sex with other male Gods, and neither does Heavenly Mother have it with other female Gods.
To convince someone who really understands and believes in Mormon theology that God would ever say it’s OK for same-gender couples to marry and have sex with each other, you would have to convince us that our heavenly parents could do that too with other same-gender deities. Good luck with that.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 3, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
#4 Oh, right, that’s why we excommunicate members who are in interfaith marriages and sponsor ballot propositions to prohibit such marriages. Just because a particular marriage or relationship doesn’t fit our afterlife theology doesn’t mean we have to go on the offense to stop people from engaging in such relationships–particularly when they’re not even members of our church.
Comment by Bro. Jones — April 3, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Christopher (#4), I’m thinking (hoping) your comment was satirical? Because I’m pretty sure the “who does God have sex with” line of questioning raises far more problems than it solves…
Nice post, ECS. It’s tough enough being a Mormon woman at times…I’m sure trying to be a Mormon homosexual would be next to impossible–especially in the current climate…
Comment by Katie Langston — April 3, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
#5: With interfaith marriages, the status of the non-Mormon partner can change in this life or the next, with regards to accepting the Mormon gospel. However, gender is eternal, so there’s no way to transform same-gender couples into godlike couples. Sorry!
#6: Absolutely not satirical. Just voicing the Mormon side, putting out the challenge for someone to harmonize same-gender marriage with Mormon theology. I think it’s impossible, but I’m all ears.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 3, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
4: The Church doesn’t have to alter its theology or view of marriage one bit to stop excommunicating gay members who can’t be celibate. The Catholics have a rather stringent view of sexual morality as well but only excommunicate members who actively and publically fight against the faith. Regular members are allowed to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord.
Great post, ECS. There has always been a clear connection between the feminist and gay rights movements.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 3, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
ick i dont like writing this because i certainly dont hate anybody and im afraid of getting flamed [sic]. i have been uncomfortable with the church’s active role in prop 8. but my feelings about marriage are founded on the belief that men and women are fundamentally different, and the thing that is formed when a man and woman come together will always be fundamentally different from the thing that is formed when a man and a man or a woman and a woman come together. obviously gay couples can love and be committed to each other just as strongly as hetero couples, and im all for civil unions and rights. the striking down of the common ground initiatives here in salt lake is, to me, reprehensible.
but i think marriage is more than love and commitment: it is an elemental combination of male and female with the potential to make new life that is at the root of all nature and perhaps the cosmos (you can see my mystical side coming out here)?
that said i do feel the female-gay analogy works. most of my friends who are gay and were raised LDS have left the church, and i dont blame them one little bit.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
I have to admit, I too don’t see how gay marriage can possibly fit in with Mormon doctrine. Especially when I’m in the temple. It seems to me that everything would have to change.
I know lots of things have changed over the years, but never the basic concept of having a family and sacred reproduction, and the important roles of father and mother.
Yeah, I know change is possible, but I just don’t see how.
Comment by Bewitched — April 3, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Christopher
Why in a pluralistic,civil society does Mormon theology take precedence over equality for all?
Since I view gender as a social construct, I question the eternalness.
As for our sex, that is biological. Many species are asexual, many species change their sex depending on the circumstances. I think Mormon theology should enter the real world, and harmonize with the continuing revelations of basic biology. .
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 3, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Oh, Iowa, what good news. I’m profoundly happy for the homosexual couples in Iowa, who have probably been working very hard to have their relationships gain completely equal footing. May other states follow soon.
I’m very much in agreement with the OP. As a woman, I find the fact that I’m so “valued” but so completely lacking in church sanctioned power, to be nothing less than condescending. I can’t imagine that it feels much better being gay and being told how much one is loved, if only you pretend a huge part of who you are doesn’t matter…just pretend it’s not there and off to heaven you’ll go.
What it really translates to is, “We love you as long as you are well behaved (by LDS standards) and do not challenge the status quo.”
Comment by Kimberly — April 3, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
#4,
I’ll admit that I don’t understand a lot of Mormon theology (especially the fluid nature of what Mormon theology actually describes beyond the Atonement of Jesus), but I need to ask the question: from what sources do you derive your belief in God’s sexual behavior? I read my scriptures (all four Standard Works) every day and am looking forward to General Conference tomorrow as I have for years - I’ve never heard anyone with authority teach such a thing. I know that we have Heavenly Parents, from the Proclamation to the World: The Family and the scriptures, but I’ve never heard anything beyond that. Unless you have some interesting logic to extend the Proclamation? Since your argument is based on this belief in a continuance of biological sex in the eternities, perhaps you should explain a bit further where you get this belief from.
Comment by NoCoolName_Tom — April 3, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
8: Yes but my understanding is that the Church keeps a much closer eye on sexual behavior than do the Catholics. That is, they do excommunicate and censure those having sex out of wedlock more than Catholics do. From that point of view they would have a hard time overlooking homosexual relations. They would need a different attitudes toward the whole thing.
Comment by Steve Fleming — April 3, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Suzanne - I know you were addressing Christopher, but what you had to say made me think because my beliefs in the importance of male and female union are somewhat based in biology.
so here’s what i think: yes there are species that are asexual or sexually amorphous (made up that term…), but they still depend on the union of male and female parts, even if both parts are present in one organism, or they switch back and forth. further, humans are mammals and that kind of behavior is far less common in mammals, although i know homosexual behavior does occur in non-human species.
i guess my point is that the union of maleness and femaleness is still central for biological renewal, and while the fluid nature of gender (and sex) poses interesting questions about identity and social construction, it doesn’t unseat the centrality of the male/female union in biology.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Go Iowa!!!
Comment by shannon j — April 3, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Thanks for this post. I have known in my gut for a while that the reason I was so upset by Prop 8/church’s involvement had everything to do with being a woman in the church. I just couldn’t link it together in my mind quite this succinctly. Thanks.
Comment by kmillecam — April 3, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
I was driving today from my mom’s house in Iowa to my house in Iowa when I heard the ruling come down on NPR. I cried.
I was proud to be an Iowan when Obama won the caucus (I was a precinct captain), and I didn’t think it was possible, but I’m even more proud of Iowa today.
Comment by TAG — April 3, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
I’m sorry to say it, but this sounds all too much like “kicking against the pricks”. Please stop and reconsider what you are doing.
It may be that the Church has been overly vigorous in opposing same-sex marriage, but nearly all of the sound and fury has come from those promoting same-sex marriage. The amount of hate unleashed against the Church and Mormons in general has been horrifying. Frankly, this looks a whole lot more like an attempt to bury “traditional” marriage than anything else, though that is perhaps simplifying things too much. It is probably more correct to say that Satan and his minions continue their efforts to destroy as many lives as possible.
I would agree that the problems of folks with same-gender attraction had largely been ignored in our society until recently, but I do not believe that giving in to the whole same-sex marriage agenda with its vigorously celebrated unchastity is a good idea. I believe that “traditional” marriage and family life is extremely important both for individuals and society as it says in the Proclamation on the Family.
Comment by Tom D — April 3, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Key phrase at the beginning there. As far as we understand. Problem is, our understanding of our post-mortal existence is extremely limited.
There are many of us who do not challenge the official LDS theological view that homosexual relationships are sinful, but very much challenge the right of the Church, whether alone or in concert with other faiths, to use law to force their moral beliefs on others. We join ECS in celebrating this victory for liberty, for freedom of conscience, and for proper separation of Church and State.
Go Huskers!
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Tom D
Oh no you di-int
Comment by nicole — April 3, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
I don’t live in California, so I have not been very politically involved with gay marriage. I do not support gay marriage, especially because the church does not support it.
I support the church in trying to get us to understand that SSA is not a sin, but that people are responsibty for their actions. I also support it in efforts to love people with SSA who are celibate and need our love and support. Also to help people learn to treat them better whether celibate or not celibate.
We can be kind to people who don’t live the commandments, no matter what commandment they are breaking, and whether they know it is a commandment or not.
I am disappointed that marriage is losing the battle.
Comment by jks — April 3, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
On a totally non-religious viewpoint, I hate when courts legislate. If California gays had either 1) been happy with civil unions that gave them everything except the word “marriage” or 2) waited a decade for the vote, there would be no problem. I believe in 10 years or so the people of California would have just voted to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, and religious-types would have accepted it, because they (we) believe in democracy. Really. Oh, there would have been whining and complaining, and then we all would have moved on. I bet it happens in Iowa too. Because the people had no say in the extention of marriage, they will fight it. If the people get to vote themselves, they accept the results. Also, there’s a reason we have three branches of government, and when the courts legislate they subvert the system. Amd…that’s bad.
Comment by Molly — April 3, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
#13: OK, I’ll tell you my logic. (I know sources exist outside of the four standard works in which GAs have spoken of similar things, but I don’t have them handy. Some of it was McConkie, which may not hold much credibility anymore anyway.)
We’re taught that God has a corporeal body with “parts and passions.” We’re also taught that we’re created in God’s image and that gender is eternal. So, basically, our heavenly parents must have actual genitals. Personally, I cannot conceive of a God who has a humanoid body and who possesses male gender who is just blank and smooth between his legs, like a Ken doll. (And similar reasoning applies for our female deity.)
And if God has a reproductive organ, I can’t imagine he doesn’t use it in some celestial way, and same with his spouse(s). I don’t pretend for a moment to understand exactly how celestial procreation works, but my Mormon logic tells me that it is a glorified, ultra-turbocharged version of our mortal version here on earth. (By the way, I personally tend to agree with one GA who gave his opinion that those resurrected to a lesser degree will not receive their genitals in the resurrection–indeed, perhaps they WILL be like Ken and Barbie dolls in the crotch area.)
This is deep stuff, and today’s GAs won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, but it’s essential to the conversation about same-gender “marriage” and why it will never be compatible with Mormon theology, in my opinion.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 3, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
There are many of us who do not challenge the official LDS theological view that homosexual relationships are sinful, but very much challenge the right of the Church, whether alone or in concert with other faiths, to use law to force their moral beliefs on others.
Derek, I think that’s exactly right. Whether or not homosexuality is sinful is not the same issue as whether or not the church has the right to enforce its theological positions on others.
The bitter irony is that it was for alternative lifestyles that our own people faced such unconscionable persecution for years.
Having said that, I agree with you, Christopher, that it is nigh unto impossible to reconcile LDS views with a stance that embraces homosexuality as okay (to my great sorrow)–at least given the current emphasis on the eternity of gender. I just think you don’t have to go all the way to “God has sex with Goddesses” to get there, because that’s a pretty speculative doctrine as I understand it.
Comment by Katie Langston — April 3, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
#15 Asexual means that they reproduce without sex. There are no male parts, no female parts, no coitus, just reproduction. The offspring are genetically identical to the parent. Most single cell organims reproduce this way.
Genetic abnormalities happen in humans too. Triple sex gene syndromes are not unheard of as are humans that have both sets of sex organs. I don’t have numbers, but it does happen. I think being an individual with one of these abnormalities in the church would be difficult, church doctrine doesn’t seem to include them.
Comment by queenlucy — April 3, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Actually, Molly (comment #23), courts aren’t “legislating” when they interpret laws and determine constitutionality, they are doing *exactly* what their job (as part of a three-branched government) is. This is why when there are constitutional issues, a decision from the court is considered the final say (not the legislation). This is what checks and balances (and a three branch system) is all about.
Comment by Hannah G — April 3, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Don’t get too emotional, TAG. It wasn’t Iowa. It was seven judges in black robes who decided to join the “let’s redefine the word ‘marriage’ coalition.”
Comment by Mark B. — April 3, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Just to add to my #27, I meant a decision from the *highest* court able to interpret the relevant constitution (which is state supreme court for state constitutions and U.S. Supreme Court for the federal constitution).
Comment by Hannah G — April 3, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
A feeling of anger against leaders of the Lord’s church obviously isn’t a feeling of the Spirit. I’ve learned and re-learned and re-re-learned that I need humbling, even when I’m right! That’s when I most need to realize that I can learn from others (even if they’re not right) and that I can still love and support them. Also, as a small tidbit, I think the ERA was more about ignoring the obvious differences between men and women. No matter how many more rights are given to women, it cannot be denied that there are some differences and legally ignoring them would hurt both genders.
I’m sorry that you are angry about it and I don’t want to be preachy (especially as I would never take something similar from someone I didn’t know and really respect and love). But I encourage you to humble yourself before the Lord and to be willing to do whatever He asks, even if it’s not what you’d expect logically or want. Then be willing to forgive and love and support. It’s the hardest thing in the world, but it will make you better and happier, and that’s the point of this life.
All the best from Germany,
Michelle
Comment by Michelle Glauser — April 3, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
nobodyputsbabyinacorner
When it comes to biomass, bacteria rule. They’ve been around for billions of years, and the last time I checked had neither male or female parts. Many live in symbiotic relationship with us or have become part of us. Will our mitochondria be resurrected with us?
It seems to me with an exalted man and an exalted woman after exulted sex and nine celestial months, there should be an exalted baby. But no, we’re just spirit children, whatever that means.
My wife has the same mystical view of sex as you (minus the male part.) So we’ll just find us a nice new planet and spread our spores around and watch the biological renewal.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 3, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
“I personally tend to agree with one GA who gave his opinion that those resurrected to a lesser degree will not receive their genitals in the resurrection–indeed, perhaps they WILL be like Ken and Barbie dolls in the crotch area”
wow really? what a nightmare for me! i consider ken and barbie mutilated. why do people think penises and vaginas are so dirty that a perfect human could not possibly have them? maybe resurrected humans should be without hands too? scary, scary, john ruskinish stuff to me.
#26: my mistake. the whole biological argument is tricky anyway, because its based on a perspective on the afterlife that is not held by everybody (eg we have bodies and they have sex and reproduce physically), although i think it is theologically implied. its just my opinion on why the church would take such a strong stance: male/female union must be important, like, really important.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Please post the name of the GA and a link to the quote about those resurected to lesser degree not having genitals. Funniest thing I’ve heard all day
Comment by A.J. — April 3, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
oops…misreading. i didn’t see that you wrote that those resurrected to a LESSER degree would be missing their southern parts. thats slightly more possible to my mind, but i still think unlikely…genitals are parts of bodies, and if we get our bodies back every hair, i dont think those slightly larger bits will get left off.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Hannah G.,
I don’t think that the Supreme Court was really doing its job when it invented “the right to privacy means a woman can have an abortion” law.” I think they took the right to legislate abortion laws from the states, where it belongs as per the 10th amendment. I think it made the abortion ruling for political reasons, just like the same-sex marriage rulings. They are politically motivated, in my opinion. And that subverts the system, and makes people not accept the “laws” that are made by these rulings.
Comment by Molly — April 3, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Kudos for the righteous anger.
It’s about time.
Comment by Chino — April 3, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
haha, i look forward to that suzanne. its still my opinion that its significant that humans are mammals and not bacteria, and presumably (religiously, at least) will be resurrected with human bodies that will need to reproduce in the same way…
but you are right that bacteria dominate the world. and there are lots of people that are uncomfortable with the idea of physical reproduction after death so, maybe exaltation will be everybody reproducing with spirit spores. who knows?
i will now stop dominating this thread (im writing a paper and this blog is my distraction/comfort)
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
#23 - Yeah, that court legislating thing really stunk with Brown v Board of Education. You’re completely right that if blacks would have just waited, the Civil Rights Act would have come a decade and a half later without it. Right?
One of the jobs of the courts is to protect the rights of the minority against the majority. How can we trust civil rights to the voice of the people?
#28 - All the people who think that this will be turned around by “the voice of the people” - Iowans are a lot more liberally minded than you would think. So excuse me for being a bit happy.
And if it’s just seven men in robes (actually, it’s six men and one woman), then why even have a judicial branch? Do we believe in our three branches of government system or don’t we?
#20 - You meant Hawkeyes, not Huskers, right?
Comment by TAG — April 3, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
And the one woman on the bench is the chief justice, FYI.
Comment by TAG — April 3, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
#11 said: “Why in a pluralistic,civil society does Mormon theology take precedence over equality for all?”
If I understand Mormonism correctly, we believe that God inspired America’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles chiefly as a seedbed for the restoration of the gospel. If this society devolves from this original purpose and nature, then it is cause for great alarm and strong action. Legitimizing sodomy in any form is against basic Judeo-Christian principles, not just against Mormon ones. Now, the libertarian in me personally agrees that we shouldn’t be prosecuting people for committing sodomy or anything, but to change the definition of marriage to fully accommodate sodomy is just WAY over the top.
From a Mormon standpoint, I agree with us taking any steps possible to help slow our host society’s devolution into post-Judeo-Christian secularism, because otherwise we know that the same thing will happen to our civilization that happened to the Book of Mormon civilizations. In fact, we know it WILL eventually happen in the time leading up to the Second Coming, but it’s worth fighting to delay the inevitable by a few decades. Also, standing up for what’s right helps sort out the god-fearing from the post-god people, a process that will only keep accelerating as we progress ever deeper into these latter-latter days.
This whole gay-marriage issue is both a sign of our civilization’s degree of pulling away from God and an unprecedented opportunity for people to choose which side they’re on. I’m sure thousands of people are weeding themselves right out of Mormonism because they’ve been deceived by the modern-day gay movement. In my belief and that of most Mormons like me, same-gender attraction is a mortal failing to be resisted or dealt with like any other addictive tendency that may be beyond some individuals’ control, with compassion that stops well short of actually condoning sinful behavior or, even worse, presuming to change eternal principles to legitimize the sin.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 3, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
11.
uftda!!
thinking like that almost makes me want to quit religion.
to the non-mo readers, i’m sorry if CB’s comment deeply offends you.
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Actually, #38, Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s (1896) ruling which upheld the constitutionality of separate but equal. The segregation laws were justified by that Supreme Court decision. The Court, one might argue, allowed segregation to happen. If it had not validated the separation of the races, we might never have had the pervasive “separate but equal” of the South. The point, though, is that when the courts force interpretations of the law on an unwilling public, the public resists. When the public gets a say, they accept, even if they don’t like it. I myself am divided on same-sex marriage, but I am not at all divided on who should decide about same-sex marriage.
Comment by Molly — April 3, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
what is the gay movement?
mikeinweho, lorian, suzanne, you guys trying to convert folks?
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
christopher - ack! im breaking my promise to give this blog a rest, if only because i think that you do not understand mormonism correctly. or maybe just history.
this country was not founded on judeo-christian beliefs, but on secular, romano-hellenistic beliefs like democracy, freedom, etc. christian and judaic systems of thought have much more in common with the hierarchical systems of the middle ages. you can see this in the church itself, which as a christian organization is based on hierarchy, not the pluralism that is written into the constitution and declaration.
of course judeo-christian moralities affected the crafting of laws and things like sodomy and murder were outlawed (not aligning the two, just picking random examples) because of these historical religious bans. but the fundamental difference between the principles that founded america and traditional judeo-christian values is a really significant historical split (why do you think america was so different from europe in the first place?)
nothing makes me crazier than people claiming that america is a christian country. christian influence? certainly. but it was built precisely to avoid giving one religion state-sanctioned priority over others, which is an intrinsically pluralistic endeavor.
i tend to agree that god probably prepared america as a place where the restoration of the gospel could happen, but he used humanistic, deistic beliefs, not “traditional” christian ones (can you imagine joseph in medieval england?) to do this.
ah i fall into school speak when i get heated. now i am done.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
what? i’ll have no quitting from you.
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Tom: No group has ever been merely handed their rights. Rights come after a fight. Those fighting for their rights are always cast as villains - trouble-makers - terrorists. This has been true since the Revolutionary War. So, you’re offended that the GLBT crowd aren’t snivvelling on their knees asking for rights? I’m sure your parents were offended that the black community wasn’t doing the same, and I”m sure your grandparents were offended that women weren’t doing the same.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Christopher, you are so far away from actual theology now it’s laughable. Perhaps you should return to the scriptures and to American history because your post shows a lack of knowledge of both.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Count me in as deceived, then!
Comment by LisaJ — April 3, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
CB, you don’t get to question my dedication, worthiness, faithfulness to the lds church.
just because i don’t play along and say all the right mormon things doesn’t make my adult conversion [read: my choice after many months of detailed and prayerful study] any less important than your baptism at 8.
the thought and comments that reflect the thinking that (somehow) i’m more special and god likes me more than crazywomancreek just because i’m lds (and fortunate to be born in a cool geographic location) makes my stomach churn.
there are lots of blogs in the universe for you to pat your self on the back (look at you, your such a good saint, yes you are, such a good boy, yes).
fmh probably isn’t a good fit for you.
i
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
#44: That’s all fine and good, and obviously you know history better than I do and how to discuss it. My statement wasn’t a sweeping statement precluding any other influences on this country’s founding as well, and I also wasn’t using the term “Judeo-Christian principles” to mean the whole package transported over from Europe or something. I was more meaning biblical morality and the bits and pieces of the Judeo-Christian tradition or mindset that God saw fit to salvage from among the errors of history and put into the hearts and minds of America’s founders, many of whom asked for such inspiration, after all.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 3, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Thanks for the great comments, all.
For those of you who haven’t read the Ohio opinion, you should note that the Court emphasized that religious organizations are still free to refuse to perform gay marriages.
Amen!
I don’t have much time this evening to check in here, but please give your best efforts to refrain from name calling and impugning the spiritual qualifications of your fellow commenters. Muchas gracias.
Comment by ECS — April 3, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
And many of whom did not.
And some of whom - most notably Jefferson - were not even Christian.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Happy Day for Iowa!! Prop 8 - your days are numbered…
Comment by newbie — April 3, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
ECS: The Court said the same thing in California and look what happened.
That said, I am SO PULLING FOR IOWA.
There are two initiatives looking to be on the ballot over here next year. One to call for all “marriages” to be regarded as “domestic partnerships” and the other to overturn Prop 8.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
Looking forward to both.
- wheat
Comment by LisaJ — April 3, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
oops, that was meant for #51 in response to
I’ve the link on my blog somewhere…
Comment by LisaJ — April 3, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
If CB were seriously concerned about this issue, his head would’ve already exploded years ago upon first contact with the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
Comment by Chino — April 3, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Or they could do what they did in Australia to avoid having to legalise gay marriage - Gay and straight couples, married or not, now have the same rights. In effect they have legalised polygamy and made it so that mistresses can demand spousal support. None of which I really have a problem with; but I do find it funy that the only legal way to protect one man-one woman marriage is to deprive it of meaning altogether.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Eh, you guys don’t scare me. I’ll continue to browse FHM any time I want and comment any time I want, unless you ban me.
I guess lots of people see blogs like this as havens from things in Mormonism they don’t like, rather than as places to really fully consider all viewpoints, including conservative Mormon ones like mine is on these issues.
I’m sure there are at least a handful of readers out there who relate with and appreciate most of what I’m saying, even if they don’t speak up because they don’t have much stomach for the demeaning flak that ensues. Get used to it, folks, because it’s only going to get worse, and it’s eventually going to reach YOU too, one way or another, as society puts more and more pressure on us to deny our beliefs. It’s too bad when it comes from ostensibly within the faith…
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 3, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
So someone like CB simply can’t understand that some of us have come to this belief after a great deal of prayer and supplication? Someone like CB simply can’t understand that this is an incredibly complex issue? CB, if you’d like to consider seeing yourself as a martyr for the truth, go ahead; but you aren’t going to change anyone’s minds. Those of us who disagree with church leadership on this issue have not done so without A LOT of time pleading with Heavenly Father.
And you know what? I firmly believe that He is on my side. Why should I care if you are?
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
and heaven knows we have enough of those on the blogs…
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
“as society puts more and more pressure on us”
pressure? nothing matches the pressures of the LDS church.
Comment by nicole — April 3, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
re: 23
This nation was not established as a democracy, but as a democratic-republic. Part of the difference between the two concepts is that in a democracy the majority will trumps everything. in a republic, on the other hand, there are certain principles which stand above democracy, certain rights which are self-evident and above democratic whim, rights which cannot (or should not; in this imperfect world they routinely are) be violated by legislation.
Among those rights are the right to freedom of conscience, what we erroneously call “freedom of religion.” Freedom of conscience is the freedom to follow one’s own conscience regarding right and wrong (excepting when the exercise of that right interferes with the freedom or property of another); given our beliefs in God, we would call it the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience.
To legislatively favor specific consenting relationships, or to legally restrict certain consenting relationships, or to use government to reserve certain terms for certain titles all violate freedom of conscience.
Part of the role of the judicial branch is to determine when legislation violates those rights and to overturn that legislation. That isn’t “legislating” from the bench–its fulfilling their role.
re: 40
If you do some research, you will see that the USA was in no way established by the founding fathers as a Christian nation. God established the USA as a land in which the concept of freedom of conscience would take root–because it is only in a land where freedom of conscience is observed that the Gospel would have the freedom to come forth.
re: 43
Where is Lorain lately?
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
molly
Plessy v. Ferguson’s was the court legitimizing the will of the racist white majority towards the non-white minority. Democracy in action.
Should the KKK be allowed to decide how everyone should be treated?
Or should equal protection apply?
When it comes to my marriage, I don’t think you should vote on it. When do I get to vote on your marriage? Would you like it if the majority voted to ban Mormons from marriage? Would you seek constitutional protection from the courts?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 3, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
Christopher,
You reason from a specific case to a general one. It may be that our God is married to a female Goddess, but that does not mean all Gods everywhere are. We know too little about other Gods’ marital situations to make such sweeping generalizations. It may be there are all sorts of creative families. We right now almost know enough about human genetics to allow for new ways of combining DNA, couldn’t they do the same?
Comment by AADDs — April 3, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
CB, conservative vp’s are fine as long as they are :
1. logical/rational and use actual facts as a basis
2. respectful to the majority of readers on this site.
can be done. promise.
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
re: 58
Funny how many people who claim that society is purring pressure on others to deny our beliefs are so eager to then go force others to accept our beliefs.
The only moral way to defend our beliefs is through gentle persuasion and love unfeigned, not state force.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
Like I said before, Quimb-o, I’m open to people using logic and evidence to help me examine my beliefs, which I admit have been hard-fought and hard-won and are not something I’ll put aside easily, and which I tend to communicate at certainties because that’s how I experience them at this point in my life.
That’s why I occasionally get involved in discussions on this issue, to allow for the chance that someone might be able to explain some bit of theology or spiritual reasoning that might make it possible to give up my views against gay marriage and go along with the secular/liberal crowd. But so far no one has been able to do that; instead, I get lots of logical fallacies and emotional stuff. (And I’m not claiming that I don’t return in kind, sometimes.)
Also, I’m very interested in learning more about how others think, and it’s breathtaking to me to see the audacity of people within Mormonism on this issue. Really, it’s VERY entertaining to me and thought-provoking too, mostly in a cautionary way.
Bottom line: I think it’s a discussion worth having and am glad it’s online rather than in person. Quimby, I don’t really care if you’re on my side either, but I have an almost voyeuristic interest in how people with views like yours justify yourself and–again–just a TINY bit of curiosity to see if anyone can win me over to the other side.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 3, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
You know, at the end of the day, this is one thread among millions, Chris.
But you seem intent to make not only this thread, but the topic at hand, all about you.
Why is that? Narcissistic much?
Whether you’re able to get over yourself or not, for the rest of us who disagree with you, today we get to take a little victory lap. Today, we get to enjoy the moment.
Deal.
Comment by Chino — April 3, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
I’m curious about what’s going to happen with the local Church wards in Iowa - Will there be a proposition to overturn it? Will the Church have the Iowa members make donations and hold up signs? Why is the Church so quiet about this in Iowa? Are they saving up their energy for another battle in CA? So many questions!
Comment by newbie — April 3, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
i know just how you feel.
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
I’m not really sure why everyone is jumping all over Christopher for this statement:
That’s pretty much exactly what 1 Nephi 13-14 say, and other scriptures in the BofM back it up. Specifically these verses in 1 Nephi 13:
12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters . . .
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.
17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.
18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.
19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations . . .
30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance . . .
32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.
33 Wherefore saith the Lamb of God: I will be merciful unto the Gentiles, unto the visiting of the remnant of the house of Israel in great judgment.
34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb.
35 For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb.
36 And in them shall be written my gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation.
So, the Spirit of the Lord wrought upon Columbus and the pilgrims and others and inspired them to come to America, where the Lord wouldn’t “suffer” that they remain in “blindness” because of the plain and precious parts that are missing from the Bible. So, he will prepare the BofM to be revealed so that they will have the gospel. Couple that with D&C 101, which says:
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
Add to that the endless warnings in the Book of Mormon about what will happen if the people in America turn away from God (1 Nephi 14:6, 2 Nephi 1:10. etc.), along with talks by church leaders about God’s hand in founding America (L Tom Perry, George P Lee), including this quote:
America was founded so that the gospel could be restored and so that this sacred record could be brought back to my people and to anyone who will listen.
and I just don’t think that CB’s statement is too far off. Offensive or not, that is pretty much what our Mormon scripture and doctrine teaches.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Christopher
I have no interest in converting you (although I sure would love that new toaster oven) What’s with the binary thinking?
Why do people keep saying they are God fearing? Isn’t the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors? Do we learn anything from the parable of the Good Samaritan?
We shouldn’t fear our Heavenly Parents.
But I have to admit the idea of being God’s eunuch servant doesn’t sound appealing. I guess I’ll have to unionize the telestial kingdom.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 3, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
re: 58
WWSED?*
*What would Steve Evans do?
re: 67
Nobody ever is ‘won over to the other side’ via these kind of debates, in the Bloggernacle or elsewhere. Opinions change when real people actually get to know each other as friends in person. Admittedly that’s hard when we live in such a polarized society and mostly hang out with people who already share our views. If you’re “almost voyeuristic,” Christopher, why are you “glad it’s online rather than in person” ? Why don’t you just hang out in person with some good ol’ fashion liberals and gay lovers!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 3, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Yeah, I get that the rift is probably over the “founded on Judeo-Christian principles”. No, our constitution doesn’t write in Judeo-Christian principles as nobodyputsbabyinacorner (#44) points out (and instead allows freedom of conscience). But, the rest of CB’s comment (#40) regarding the prophecies of the BofM seem pretty accurate.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Suzanne, according to the guide to the scriptures,,
Fear can have two meanings:1 to fear God is to feel reverence and awe for him and to obey his commandments;2 to fear man, mortal dangers, pain, and evil is to be afraid of such things and to dread them.
I think that when people speak of fearing God, they are referring to the first meaning.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
Stephanie -
I’m just spinning out on your link to George P. Lee.
Seriously?
Wow.
If that’s what passes for authority these days, that’s just Crazy Town.
Comment by Chino — April 3, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
I also think CB did a fair job of distinguishing between two ideas:
1. Whether we as Mormons have the right to legislate our theology onto others.
2. Whether we as Mormons should change our theology to accomodate the lifestyle of others.
These are two really different arguments, but it seems that they often get conflated on these types of threads.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
another post for another day.
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Chino, he was a member of the 70, and the address was given in General Conference. I suppose that if you consider addresses given in General Conference by members of the 70 to be “authority”, then it might hold water.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
I feel like I WANT to say something, but I have no idea where to start. I’m just really taken aback by CB. When somebody says she has prayed seriously about something and come to a conclusion she has reason to believe has come from God…it just seems extremely ill-mannered to intimate that she is audacious or justifying herself.
Mormonism is fluid and free-wheeling at its heart and it makes me sad that so many people cannot keep themselves from putting it in a rigid, easily contained frame. It makes me sad, but I understand it, too. I think it’s human nature to come up with systems so we can make sense of the world and protect ourselves from paradox and from being overwhelmed. But God is not beholden to our systems.
Comment by MInerva — April 3, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
mike, i thought about WWSED, but i thought i would give it one more chance.
Comment by mfranti — April 3, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
I have to disagree with your #77, Stephanie. I think CB is not drawing any distinction at all - he seems to think that the LDS church, because it is Christian, should have the final say on this. But that’s false for two reasons: 1. Religion should have no place in civic discourse; and 2. There are so many Christian and Jewish sects that are totally fine with gay marriage (either secular or religious) so why should this church, or a group of conservative churches, have the say, even if #1 wasn’t true?
Nobody is asking the Mormon church to change its theology. Churches have the right to marry whoever they want - just try walking into a Catholic church and demanding to be married there. There has not been a case, anywhere in the world, where a gay couple has demanded the right to be married in a non-gay-friendly church, and actually got their way. (Why would they want to anyway?) So your #2 is a non-issue, so far as gay marriage is concerned.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
(I should clarify, by the way, that the conclusion I reached through prayer was: Heavenly Father loves me and knows me and understands my heart and has a full comprehension of I feel about this issue and isn’t going to condemn me for following the dictates of my own conscience. He knows that my support of gay marriage comes from a place that is consistent with my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ and certain political philosophies, and He is not going to condemn me for taking a stand that is most consistent with my integrity. I am not claiming that I recieved some revelation that pertains to the entire church; just that I have a testimony that my Heavenly Father knows my heart and knows my soul and is far more compassionate than to condemn me for living according to the dictates of my own conscience.)
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Stephanie, he was arrested for child molestation. Correct?
Comment by MInerva — April 3, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
re: 74
While we might agree with the general idea of a moral decline in the U.S, many of us realize that the prescription which Chris is supporting (the use of legislation to force certain personal religious beliefs upon the nation) are the wrong strategy–even one which is self-defeating, as the use of government to force religious principles on others corrupts the religion.
If you want to fight secularism, then don’t use an instrument (government) which is supposed to be by its very nature secular. Use religion instead.
BTW, it baffles me how so many conservatives are so insistent that homosexuality is somehow a key sign of the times and evidence of moral decline, when the rampant greed, materialism, poverty, etc all of which have more serious social consequences and are so much more frequently mentioned in the scriptures than the love between two people who happen to have the same genitalia.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Where in the Book of Mormon does it say the Nephites were destroyed because they entered loving committed relationships?
Everything seemed wonderful when they were married and given in marriage.
Shouldn’t we be more concerned about robber barons and Wall Street. That sounds more like BofM prophecies.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 3, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how someone who describes themselves as a feminist, which in theory means they believe women are a vital and important part of humanity, can then turn around and say with a straight face that they see no problem with encouraging men to form partnerships and families devoid of a woman’s influence.
There was a study done that noted that families with daughters are more emotionally balanced than those without. If having daughters and sisters can make a measurable difference in a family’s emotional health, why would we disallow the difference a wife and a mother can make?
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — April 3, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
re: 77
As long as he or anyone else advocates the use of government to ban homosexual marriages, particularly when they use “Judeo-Christian principles” as a basis for their argument, they are conflating those issues.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
PDoE - Families without mothers/wives have existed pretty much since time began. Tons of women died in childbirth, often leaving behind husbands and sons and daughters, and their husbands didn’t always remarry.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Stephanie,
You miss the whole point. It is not what the scriptures teach, or what the prophets counsel, or what our doctrine teaches. Those things don’t matter when it comes to some individuals’ ideas of equality, fairness, and social justice. Their philosophy and agenda is all about them. The are a “law unto themselves.”
Comment by Clayton — April 3, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Minerva, interesting. I didn’t know that. According to wikipedia, he was called to the Quorom of the 70 in 1975 and excommunicated from the church in 1989. He was accused of molesting the girl in 1989. Whether he was inspired by the Lord in his address given in 1976 is debatable, but I tend to think that he was.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Clayton, if you want a theology-based form of government, might I suggest Saudi Arabia?
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Is that possible if religious people engage in public discourse?>. One religion should not be able to legislate its doctrine…but civic discourse? Hmm..
Comment by MInerva — April 3, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
I think this is true. Having a family devoid of daughters has made me incredible emotionally unstable . . . Now I know why!
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Excellent point, Minerva. After all, our morality is informed by our religion. However I like to think that our morality is more all-encompassing than simply our religion; and where we cannot give a non-religlous reason for a political belief, politics must trump religion in civic matters.
Thus because there is no political argument for banning gay marriage, the government should not legislate against gay marraige.
I am a believer that laws governing behavior should be limited only to those laws which, if they were not in place, would cause harm to another person. Assault clearly harms another person; therefore it should be illegal. Gay marriage does not harm anyone, unless you want to make an argument that it hurts the people who are involved in the marriage; but I don’t think that is an argument that would stand, and since there are very few or no laws forbidding self-harm, it seems a moot point.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
@79 …
All I’m suggesting is that if excommunication means anything, then maybe George’s pronouncements shouldn’t (hold water) at this late (post-excommunication) date.
IOW, are you truly incapable of admitting the absurdity of quoting “authorities” who’ve long since been stricken from church rolls?
I mean, as far as I can tell, I’ve got one up on George P. Lee: I’m still a member. Shouldn’t what I have to say count for at least as much?
Anyways, if I were to link to a satellite broadcast, would that be enough to count as convincing?
Or does it have to be General Conference?
If the latter, well, I guess you win this round.
Comment by Chino — April 3, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
*threadjack*
Can I just say, ECS, that your post is extremely profound. It’s pretty clear that you’re pissed. And yet, tomorrow you’ll raise your arm to sustain a patriarchal hierarchy of religious leaders - the same leaders that seem to be causing you so much anger. I’ve known individuals from all kinds of religious and political backgrounds and I’ve never seen anything like this. (ie. how many Feminist Muslim Housewives do you know?)
Sure, I know this whole blog is some sort of - other dimension- which feminists and Mormons have a hard time wrapping their heads around. But there is something about the “absolutely livid tone” of your post that really makes me think.
You’re either completely brainwashed or there is something truly profound about this church - to allow yourself to stay in the midst of so much that goes completely against so many things you hold dear. I’m guessing the latter.
*I just happen to sympathize with much of your frustration, but have been recently coming to terms with the fact that I belong to a conservative church. Am I going to be pissed off all the time? Am I going to leave the church? Or am I going to start re thinking my inclinations - or at least put them on the shelf temporarily?
Comment by CJ Douglass — April 3, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Chino, yeah, the man was excommunicated and committed a lewd act 13 years after he spoke in conference as a member of the 70. No, I don’t think that completely invalidates his conference address. People can be worthy and inspired and then later succumb to Satan. So, take that talk for what it is worth. I don’t find it completely invaluable.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
BTW, upon review, #97 came out a little rough around the edges - sorry for that - it was not intended at a gouge at you or anyone else - I simply marvel at the complexity of Latter-day Saints.
Comment by CJ Douglass — April 3, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Chino, probably because I don’t put much stock in the opinion of man (or woman). But, I put a lot of stock in the words the Lord inspires someone in an official capacity (like GA) to speak - that He uses people to convey his message. So, for me, it comes down to whether or not the message delivered in 1976 was inspired by the Lord. Considering that I believe General Conference messages are, I have to believe it was.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Quimby, I have a question for you (sorry totally off topic, well kind of) could it be that gay and lesbianism was not around in the Saviors time, thus, no need to talk about it? Could it be that it has developed over the last 100 years and is solely an our generation issue? So, again, no reason for the Savior to bring it up?
Comment by Sunshine — April 3, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Oh, yeah. Iowa is WAY more liberal than California. No WAY an amendment would pass there…unless by chance Iowa is populated with the same kind of “stupid” voters who can “tricked” into voting for it.
Comment by anelie — April 3, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
re: 101
Homosexuality is hardly a modern invention. History is filled with references to homosexuality (and bisexuality).
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Sunshine, I highly doubt it, given the overwhelming evidence of its existence in the OT, Greek society, etc.
But suppose you are right. Does that change Christ’s words about not judging and loving all men?
I am not arguing that the Church needs to change its stance on the issue of homosexuality. I am not arguing that the Church needs to embrace gay marriage. I am not even arguing that the Church needs to say that homosexuality is not a sin. It is well within their rights, as a religious body, to believe whatever they want to believe about homosexuality, and it to teach it to their members. It is not within their rights to push their beliefs on a secular society. (For a less heated issue, take the WoW. As a Mormon I don’t drink coffee; but you won’t find me in front of Starbucks with a protest sign. You’ll find me inside, having a nice steamed milk while my husband enjoys a capuccino. He hasn’t made the same covenants I have made; so the Word of Wisdom does not apply to him in the same way it applies to me.)
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
ya, but how far back? we don’t really know,.. maybe starting in what, the 1300’s, but really, was it homosexuality or lets just have sex with everyone?
Comment by Sunshine — April 3, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Quimby, right I don’t disagree with that either. I have just been pondering loads from the last time we discussed the issue. It was a thought that I had.
And good point…
And, remind me where in the OT it actually says homosexuality.. or is it just sex with everyone male and female, which doesn’t really mean homosexuality.. just a free for all sex thing.
Comment by Sunshine — April 3, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
Stephanie -
Have you never laughed at yourself?
Let it go. Be grateful it happened among friends and move on.
George P. Lee? Seriously?
C’mon. Lighten up.
Comment by Chino — April 3, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
re: 105
We have very detailed records from throughout the Mediterranean world going at least a few hundred years BC.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
108 Really? Where?
Comment by Sunshine — April 3, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
here’s a good link for historical apologetics gone wrong
and Sunshine. Oy. Alexander the Great, Plato, Walt Whitman, Michaelangelo, Hadrian, Sappho.
Queernes is Not a modern construct. I know you ask with honesty and not snark but…golly.
Comment by crazywomancreek — April 3, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
Well, after I made the 100 years comment I recalled some of my history, but really I didn’t realize Alexander the Great… sheesh… how lame is that?
Comment by Sunshine — April 3, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
re: 109
There are all sorts of scholarly books on the topic, many records in art (esp Greek amphora and Japanese prints). For a brief overview, check out here.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
I don’t think that is a fair assessment of the church’s stance. Thoughts and behaviors are not the same. From the Provident Living website:
In this, I feel that gay members are like the rest of us who have various proclivities and susceptibilities toward all manner of sin.
For me, I am an alcoholic and struggle all the time with sobriety. It affects my life in many, many ways. Medical procedures are often more challenging because I can’t consider using sedation for a colonoscopy or pre-surgery.
I’ll probably never in this lifetime get over the desire to be high. But I can be sober for an hour at a time (okay, sometimes minutes at a time).
So I commiserate with those who struggle with same-sex attraction and other kinds of proclivities to sin. But I truly believe in the power of the Atonement to make each of us whole.
I don’t think anyone is asking them to pretend. They can share as much with other members as they feel comfortable. They might be much in demand as fireside speakers.
That’s witty hyperbole, but where is the data to back it up? Of course there are lots of very active members who don’t “fall nicely in line” with that stereotype. One local bishop’s wife is very career oriented, and an elder’s quorum president is a full-time dad while his wife is employed. The church does nothing against them.
Okay, I was there for that fight, and that wasn’t what happened. The church was very clear about its reasoning. There was a brochure included with the Ensign, which is available online, which lays out the concerns. The church was also committed to equal rights for women, but what remedy to use and what “equal” means was the issue.
I don’t think the world, including Iowa, does so much a better job of recognizing the equality of women. The world tends to be dismissive of traditionally female talents and contributions, which is something the church values.
Comment by Naismith — April 3, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
re: 113
I think the situation regarding the Church and their esteem for traditionally female talents and contributions is a bit more complex than that. Do they value those talents and contributions as much when it is man who shares those talents or makes those contributions (is the homemaker/nurturer, for example)? That’s debatable (a man who stays home and raises the kids is not widely recognized within the Church). In that case, one might argue that they don’t so much truly value those talents and contributions so much advertise those talents and contributions to encourage women to remain in their traditional roles.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
I want to say this carefully, so hear me out before jumping all over me. There is a man in our stake who I think might be gay. He is in his 30s and not married. I’ve never see him at any singles functions (my husband has to go to a lot of them for his calling, so sometimes I go, too), and as far as I know, he hasn’t dated anyone in the several years I’ve lived here. He’s served under a Bishop and now the stake and is very loved. Seriously, people love him - especially all the wives of the leaders. He eats dinner with a family every night and practically lives in some of the homes.
The other day I watched him for a bit at a stake function, and I thought, “I wonder if he is gay”. His mannerisms are very feminine (like the stereotypes in movies). My second thought was, “That’s cool”.
First, he may or may not be gay. Heaven knows I hate it when people assume that any feminine guy is gay, particularly since I have a very beautiful son who is artsy, does not like sports, etc. I don’t want anyone to say to him, “You are not manly. You must be gay”. I think there are many shades to being a man.
But, second, if he is, I think it is cool because he is an active, loved, accepted, supported member of the church. It’s like seeing the way the church says it treats gay members in action.
Now watch, he’ll get engaged to a woman next week and prove me all wrong.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
re: 102 From what I’ve read it’s much more difficult and and slow to amend the constitution of Iowa than California, so gay marriage will exist in Iowa for the next few years at least. It’s similar to what happened in MA.
re: 113
Well, at least this time it took over a hundred comments before I got compared to an alcoholic….and so far nobody has compared gays to drug dealers, kleptomaniacs, or pornographers. Perhaps this is progress?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 3, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
re: 115
I agree that (assuming this guy is gay) it is wonderful to hear that your ward has rallied around him like this despite his stereotypically homosexual demeanor. I think this is becoming more common around the Church.
I do not think it is representative of the historic treatment of homosexuals within the Church, and is hardly the standard now, which is why I can understand the antipathy homosexuals feel toward the Church.
Nor do I think any level of welcoming homosexuals who live celibate within the Church makes it acceptable to for the Church to lobby for legislation to restrict freedom for homosexuals who chose to live otherwise outside the Church.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
re: 115
You could view that two ways, Stephanie. On the one hand, I see your point; it’s nice that he’s so well loved. On the other hand, the fact that he is completely in the closet (and the subject of gossip?) might well be a tremendous burden to him.
What would happen if he started telling people in your stake that he is gay?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 3, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
115. But if this brother was truly gay and out you and the other members might be acting differently. Some would be convinced (for no sane reason) that he would try to ‘recruit’ their children others would be mistaken that he’s a pedophile and scuttle the children far away from him.
Sad.
Comment by ludlow — April 3, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
re: 118
To be fair, I do know of some wards in which there are openly homosexual (celibate) members who have been embraced by their wards. It is not unheard of.
But I also still hear many snide, disgusting, and violent jokes about homosexuals in some LDS circles. Things are better, but far from great.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
Am I correct in my observation that many Latter-day Saints have really crappy gaydar?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 3, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
MikeInWeHo, I am not one to gossip, and I have never spoken about him to anyone (besides married women telling me what a great cook he is and how often they have him over for dinner). I never said anything about thinking he might be gay to anyone else (until now on this “anonymous” forum, but it isn’t something I would bring up to people in my ward or stake). Whether he is or isn’t really isn’t my business.
ludlow, I know for a fact that if nothing changed besides the fact that he was truly gay and out, my behavior and attitude toward him would not be any different. I can’t speak for anyone else. (I did have a good friend in high school who came “out” after he graduated. Actually, I had a crush on him all through high school. I admit that I didn’t crush on him after finding out he was gay, but other than that, I didn’t treat him much differently. We lost touch after a while, but I lost touch with most of my friends).
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
It’s not just Mormons, Mike. One day my mother-in-law said to me, “You know, I think Aunt Margaret might have been gay.” I asked, “Oh yeah? What makes you think that?” She said, “Well, she had a 3 bedroom house, but she and Ann always shared a bed.” Huh. That might be a good indication.
Or there’s my nephew, who told me that his uncle Bill was gay. I said, “Steve’s really nice, don’t you think?” (Steve is Bill’s partner. They’ve lived together for 10 years now.) He said, “Oh, no, they aren’t gay together.”
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
I honestly don’t know. But I like to think that with working so closely with the Bishop and stake president, he would confide that in them, and they would continue to support him and involve him without needing to tell anyone else. I guess I assume that if he is gay, they already know. That’s what I like to think.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
And my high school friend who came out is Mormon. His parents were very sad about it, but they were very loving and supportive, as far as I could tell. I was at college at the time, so I only saw them occassionally.
Comment by Stephanie — April 3, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
I had a friend in high school who came out after graduation too. We were each other’s “fall back” - you know, if we weren’t married by 30 we were going to marry each other. Yeah, that would’ve worked really well! Thankfully I married and he came out before either one of us reached 30. Otherwise I’d be in a sex-less marriage to a closeted gay man, yikes. Imagine the therapy bills.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
I don’t have to imagine the therapy bills; I’ve lived the nightmare, with my father in law being gay. He and my mother in law spent 35 loveless years together, gradually destroying each other’s sense of self worth, while keeping the secret up till my MIL died. If my FIL could have found acceptance for his true self in society that would never have happened.
Comment by Paula — April 3, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
“Rights come after a fight. Those fighting for their rights are always cast as villains - trouble-makers - terrorists. This has been true since the Revolutionary War.”
this is historically true, but I think we need to be careful with the implications of this attitude, and qualify what kind of fight we are looking for. quimby, im sure youre not advocating violence, and thankfully that attitude is rare, but it does surface occasionally on both sides. i think martin luther king is a better example than malcolm x (although you kind of have to admire the guy anyway).
i was never more impressed with the LGBT community here in salt lake than when they announced that they weren’t going to picket temple square for conference, but perform acts of service this weekend. what a great way to show people that they aren’t the furious legions of satan that some think they are. what a lovely, human thing to do.
righteous anger is one thing, but that doesn’t free us from the obligation to take the high road. its in both sides’ interests, and the interest of progress, anyway.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Don’t have anything to add, but I thought I might direct people to a recent podcast at 9M about this issue. Rusty interviews “Silus Grok”, a gay Mormon with a perspective obviously not shared by many here.
Comment by Tim J — April 3, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
“I’m curious about what’s going to happen with the local Church wards in Iowa - Will there be a proposition to overturn it? Will the Church have the Iowa members make donations and hold up signs? Why is the Church so quiet about this in Iowa? Are they saving up their energy for another battle in CA? So many questions!”
I was thinking about this question too! maybe it’s because it was a legislation rather than a vote? the local wards couldn’t have done much about it anyway.
id be surprised too if they mobilize against it, unless they get invited into some kind of coalition. my impression is that the church wasn’t in the prop 8 battle until the local catholic diocese asked for their support…it will be interesting to see if it comes up tomorrow at conference.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 3, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Historical perspective is important, baby. There were plenty of whites who though MLK was too violent and confrontational. Had the Patriot Act existed at the time, the Boston Tea Party would’ve been viewed as an act of terrorism. A few protest marches and a bit of graffitti does not equate to a violent, lawless movement.
Comment by Quimby — April 3, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
And Malcolm X wasn’t the monster which he was painted to be by the establishment, especially once he recognized the flaws of the Nation of Islam and became drawn to true Islam. The man had incredible integrity.
Comment by Derek — April 3, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
A couple of thoughts:
1. There are only 7 stakes in the entire state of Iowa, and three of those stakes have as many members in bordering states as in Iowa. There isn’t going to be a whole lot to mobilize even if asked to.
2. Reversing this decision via amendment is going to be tricky in Iowa. See here. It’s not going to be a mere get-out-the-vote campaign.
As an Iowa Mormon, I’m not expecting anything close to Prop 8.
Comment by Tim J — April 3, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
I like what desmoinesdem posted on her blog (via link given in 133):
Or put another way, if you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t have one.
Comment by Phouchg — April 4, 2009 @ 12:32 am
#57
Wow. I can’t believe no one followed up on this statement–or did I miss it? How does depriving marriage of meaning “protect” one man-one woman marriage? And how does legalizing same-sex marriage protect marriage? It’s just one more step in weakening the definition. Most of the participants in this discussion seem to think marriage is about recognizing commitment and love between two people. But marriage, until recently, has always meant so much more than that. Its always been about establishing stable families where the children who result from those unions are legally tied to the biological parents. Society has recognized marriage because marriage benefits society. Society doesn’t benefit by recognizing romance.
Being an advocate for traditional marriage is not about trying to force a particular brand of theology down anyone’s throat. You don’t even have to bring God into this discussion to have a rational conversation.
Comment by Rivkah — April 4, 2009 @ 12:36 am
Not true for the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of marriages that were childless or had adopted children.
Or do you want to say that infertile people can’t marry either?
Come on. You can’t seriously argue that marriage is about creating biological children without disenfranchising entire groups of people.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 12:40 am
Furthermore, Rivkah, you seem to be ignoring the many and varied forms of marriage. Whose marriage? There is historical precedence for gay marriage. Saying that the one-man one-woman model is “traditional” is incredibly ethnocentric.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 12:44 am
Not sure why, ECS. You don’t live in CA, don’t work in CA, don’t pay taxes in CA, don’t vote in CA. Why so livid, furious, incensed and angry? The Church didn’t vote to overturn an out of control CA supreme court. The voters of CA did that. Are you suggesting the majority of voters were forced to over turn genderless marriage because of what the Church teaches about such marriages? Please! Mormons make up only a very small percentage of voting CA residents. The Church and its teachings on the family, are an easy scape goat for cheap shots and all kinds of rationalizations.
Simply over the top ECS. Please be specific and list with particularity exactly what psychological damage Thomas S. Monson has inflicted, and how he has inflicted it, and on which specific Church members.
Please be specific and list with particularity what spiritual damage Thomas S. Monson has inflicted, and how he has inflicted it, and on which specific Church members?
Anyone can establish any kind of committed, loving relationship(s) with anyone they want, ECS. They may not retain their Church membership; but, that isn’t the Church’s fault. There are certain fundamental beliefs and certain behavioral expectations for Church membership. Choices, consequences. If you make the choice that takes you out of the boundaries prescribed by the Church, then expect the natural and legitimate consequences.
The Church, through its inspired and duly sustained Prophets, Seers, and Revelators as unanimous and unified quorums of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles have taught basic and fundamental truths relating the family. Accept them, or not. No one forces the Gospel or Christ’s teachings on anyone.
The Church has been at the forefront of women’s rights since its earliest days.
When the University of Deseret (eventually the U of U) reopened in 1868 . . . women comprised almost 50 percent of bachelor’s degrees awarded; all told, only 0.7 percent of American women eighteen to twenty-one years of age were attending college in 1870.
Brigham Young was on record as saying, “We believe that women . . . should . . . study law or physics or become good bookkeepers and be able to do the business in any counting house.” He also advised women to attend medical schools; consequently, the women’s relief society supported a number of sisters who went east to obtain training. . . By the turn of the century, more female American medical students hailed from Utah than from any other state in the union.
See Givens, People of Paradox pp. 98-99.
.
Maybe.
Comment by Guy W. Murray — April 4, 2009 @ 12:54 am
This is a fascinating post ECS. But some of the comments on it make me wonder why I am still Mormon. (Well, honestly, I know why––it’s all for my family.) Every time this issue comes up, and I hear some of the logical leaps that people will undergo to be able to comfortably condemn homosexuals, I can’t help but think, “I really have almost nothing in common with most Mormons anymore. What am I still doing in the pews?” Every conversation is like listening to the all the fallacious Prop 8 rhetoric again. … I can feel a rant building, so I’m quitting. It’s just so damn depressing.
Comment by Latter-day Guy — April 4, 2009 @ 1:28 am
OK, I’m back from having Indian food with the editors of Sunstone and Dialogue, both in town for a conference today, and I wanted to weigh in on a few more things before I watch some Big Love on DVD:
#33: I agree that the idea of no genitals in the lower kingdoms is wonderfully hilarious, while also being something that I can believe. I admit I got the concept out of one of the Tanners’ anti-Mormon books, but they’re usually quite scrupulous about their quotes, if quick to go for the weirdest stuff in places like the Journal of Discourses. I just went down in the basement and tried to find it, but couldn’t. I like testing out my Mormon mind against people like the Tanners from time to time, and I’ve learned a lot about my own religion from them. I also get a real kick out of The Godmakers.
Mfranti, I have somewhat more to say unto thee. I think you were too quick to take my crack about Mormon Kool-Aid too personally. I don’t have a clue about your background or anything, so I was responding solely to the person who made the outraged comment in #41. Judging solely by that comment, the person writing the comment has not encountered or absorbed much deep Mormon thought yet, at least in some areas. I can’t reconstruct for you exactly how my Mormon worldview came about, but it goes far beyond the scriptures and includes countless other Mormon books and articles, as well as countless seminary and institute classes, firesides, and employee meetings and retreats while I was an editor at the Ensign magazine for over six years, at which high-ranking church officials, apostles, and other GAs would share frank, intimate insights into the Church, the latter days, America, the gay movement, etc. So you see, I’ve drunk very deeply of Mormon Kool-Aid, and anyone else who has drunk as deeply would recognize what I say as very much reflective of fairly widespread currents of Mormon thought, not freak out and attempt to apologize for them like the writer of comment #41 did, whoever she may be.
Oh, and as far as the “gay movement,” here’s a starting place for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_movement
Personally, I feel no doubt that Satan has largely inspired the gay movement to legitimize sodomy-based relationships as a valid lifestyle. And this must make it incredibly hard for today’s people who are same-sex attracted, to have this large, well-organized campaign luring them all the time by making gayness look normal and acceptable. A hundred years ago, people who felt same-sex attraction might in rare cases act on it furtively but would never have tried to publicly embrace it and defend it as a legitimate long-term lifestyle. But now someone who feels SSA and doesn’t act upon it is made to feel like a repressed coward, so no wonder we have people feeling such pressure to “come out.” With such a vibrant, alluring gay lifestyle beckoning, many people with mixed gender attraction are giving in to same-gender attractions who never would have done so if society had not become so permissive, a process aided and abetted by the devil, who I believe is a real being with a real agenda and real ways of confusing and tempting us.
#56: Huh? I’m actually against sodomy laws. I think consenting adults should be free to practice whatever vices they want and face the consequences, as long as they don’t directly infringe on the rights of others. Even the church hasn’t said anything about enforcing sodomy laws, and it even stated that it doesn’t necessarily oppose basic legal rights for gay couples. Committing blasphemy against God by changing the definition of holy matrimony to include sodomy is a whole other ballgame, though.
#64: That’s a really interesting viewpoint with some good logic. However, Joseph Smith and other early leaders made it quite clear, and it makes total logical sense to me, that God is part of an eternal lineage of Gods who all follow and obey and uphold the same eternal principles, which are very clear when it comes to marriage and procreation and parentage. The universe is one big endless Zion beehive of Gods who are all on the same program, not a chaotic sci-fi scenario like you speculate with “creative families.” At least, from my Mormon perspective.
#68: In logic class, we call this an ad hominim attack. If I do have any nacissistic tendencies, I have lots of other easier topics and more welcoming venues to feed that need. I admit I do feel a sense of responsibility to speak out on this issue as a conservative Mormon when I feel so inclined, because so few other people who think like me do so in venues that I find interesting, such as this one. It’s boring to talk about this with people who already think just like I do.
#71: Thank you. This is just the kind of Mormon Kool-Aid that I’m talking about, which people like the writer of comment #41 don’t seem to have internalized much yet.
#73: Oh, I just like conversations like this online because I have time to formulate my responses and can space it out over a longer time period rather than getting caught in some intense face-to-face encounter. In face-to-face debate, I’m the kind of person who tends to do more listening than talking, with lots of head nodding because I can always see what the other person is saying, but online I can focus on what I think and formulate my responses. I’m sure this is true for other people who are text-driven rather than verbal-driven.
#82 said “There are so many Christian and Jewish sects that are totally fine with gay marriage (either secular or religious) so why should this church, or a group of conservative churches, have the say?” That doesn’t mean anything to me, because none of those churches has the full truth or is authorized by God or led by his priesthood. I’m sure we’ll see the day when the Mormon church is the only one left standing in the right place, all other churches having caved in to secular societal pressure and persecution. (This is another concept I learned at the foot of a mentor while employed at the church.)
#83: Yes, I’m sure he’ll be patient for you to hopefully eventually come around and fully understand Mormon theological reality and accept the stand of the prophets. And if you don’t, he won’t be able to fully trust you and reward you, but he’ll still love you and give you as much reward as he can justify and as you can handle. And if you have some real mental or spiritual block that makes you not fully accountable in this area, then I know he’ll take that into account too, but it won’t make him change the doctrine.
#85: Whoa, the church isn’t trying to force anything on anybody, just trying to rally the majority to block the wrong-headed efforts of the minority to change basic laws and principles upon which the nation was founded. Everyone already agrees that greed, materialism, and poverty are not good, so the church doesn’t need to state the obvious; the reason the homosexual issue is such a telling one is that it’s a recent development in which you now have people saying that the sinful vice of sodomy is actually a good, acceptable thing. That kind of twisting of God’s laws shows an amazing lack of sensitivity to his spirit and respect for his laws, and the more this kind of secular, proudly humanistic thinking catches on in our civilization, the faster God will naturally withdraw his blessing from among us, eventually leaving us to the fate of the Jaredites and the Nephites.
I think one of the most effective ways that Satan is confusing people is to conflate the gay issue with the racial issue and, yes, perhaps even the feminist issue. Race and gender are unchangeable, unavoidable characteristics, while sexual preference is something that one can choose to act upon or not. And I want to say that I’m personally much more alarmed by a supposedly Mormon heterosexual who is so confused by the world that he or she thinks gay marriage is a good idea than I am by a gay person who is having sinful sex but acknowledges that it’s not the ideal and that he is breaking God’s laws but just hasn’t yet figured out a way to resist the temptation. And yes, I do have some gay friends who have left the church.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 4, 2009 @ 1:35 am
I’ll be honest I’m not really sure how I got here… the internet is truly a strange maze… but concerning “historical homosexuality” you’re not going to find the term “homosexual” in any ancient texts because the term was coined in 1869…
anyway… carry on.
Comment by Passing through — April 4, 2009 @ 1:40 am
“Race and gender are unchangeable, unavoidable characteristics, while sexual preference is something that one can choose to act upon or not.”
False comparison, CB. Sexual orientation is a characteristic, and if it’s alterable, where is the legit science to that effect? You might as well have said that one can choose to “act on” their gender or not; after all, women can cut their hair short, wear no makeup, put on hiking boots and flannel shirts, and get a job as a trucker, but they would still be women. Similarly, a homosexual can be completely celibate, but they’re still gay. Precision in defining and using these terms is not unimportant to making a point on this subject.
Comment by Latter-day Guy — April 4, 2009 @ 1:46 am
Gee, CB, way to be absoluetly, mind-blowingly obtuse and self-righteous in respionse to #83. I share an experience that actualloy meant quite a bit, and you twist and belittle it like that! I’m so thoroughly disgusted by you and astounded by your absurd arrogance, that you can pretend to know better than me what an important spiritual moment meant. Way to completely overstep your authority and stewardship.
I would remind you againj tht calling into question another poster’s worthiness is against policy.
I am also demanding an apology and retraction.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 1:50 am
And I’m so sick of this, It’s a choice argument. Even assuming you’re right, so what? Religion is definitely a choice, but I don’t see anyone objecting to laws against religious discrimination.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 1:53 am
#142: Hmm, good point. I’m sure I’ve heard someone else argue this better and haven’t restated it as well. I don’t think homosexuality is a characteristic; I think it’s a temptation that can be so strong in some cases that it may FEEL like a characteristic, especially when gay propaganda abets such a feeling. But this gets into areas of whether there’s a biological component to it, which is unproven in either direction. Bottom line: It’s certainly not a clear-cut case like race or gender. Personally, I believe it’s analogous to alcoholism; some people are more prone to it than others and some seem almost born to be taken into its clutches against their will, but it’s something that ideally should be resisted and that should not be enthroned or celebrated by society as something good for us.
#143: Huh, not sure what to say. Are you saying it was wrong for me to comment on your comment from a certain not uncommon Mormon perspective? If so, I think you’re overreacting a bit. I agree with you that God won’t condemn you for doing your best and will give you all the opportunity you need to work it out, and maybe someday someone will finally pull the rug out from under me on this issue and I’ll be in the same boat as you, at odds with the church but feeling that God fully accepts my differing opinion.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 4, 2009 @ 2:20 am
CB, if you’re serious about not understanding what’s so insulting and offensive about your response:
You really are a lost cause. Where do I even begin? You pretend to read God’s mind - you pretend to be able to interpret, better than me, what God revealed to me as personal revelation - you continue to tell me I will be punished if I don’t toe the line (although this is in direct contradiction to the revelation I recieved) - not to mention the whole “mental or spiritual block” business that makes it seem like I’m either insane or spiritually dead - and you think I’m overreacting?
You are really, truly, horribly a lost cause.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 2:43 am
Christopher,
The TK Smoothie doctrine was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288. See the discussion here.
I’d politely suggest that invoking the TK Smoothie to support Prop 8 etc. is probably not doing the church any favours.
Comment by Ronan — April 4, 2009 @ 3:25 am
Christopher
Well, I would have commented more but I was busy roasting babies for dinner.. Now I have to sneak off and commit random acts of mischief, so I’ll meet my quota from gay central command.
Seriously, my life isn’t so different than most. I live in a boring house in the suburbs with my wife where we did a crappy job of being parents .I go to work. I mow my lawn. I have cable TV. My life sure looks likes yours. So if I’m totally depraved, then I don’t think you’re going to be translated anytime soon.
The Mormon Church can believe whatever it wants. But it is wrong to actively seek to deprive people of their civil rights.
And I am very happy that the Iowa Supreme Court recognizes that its state constitution protects all its citizens.
And by the way, race is a social construct. Biologically speaking we’re genetically pretty much the same.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 4, 2009 @ 3:32 am
Good morning! Thanks for keeping the conversation generally civil and for your thoughtful comments. I wish I had time this morning to respond to them, but my in-laws are coming to stay with us for a week, and I’ve got to take off my “Angry Feminist” hat and put on my “Diligent Housewife” hat today. (ha, ha)
One thing I do want to say before I start the ten piles of laundry multiplying in the basement is that I’m still learning how to process my anger at “the Church” (which is an abstraction, really), while remaining an active member.
I’ve had many positive experiences in the Church, and it pains me to see an organization I belong to make decisions that harm people I love.
Again, thanks for your comments. I’ll check back in later if I can escape
Comment by ECS — April 4, 2009 @ 5:54 am
Gay marriage is such a divisive and emotional issue, for both sides. I fully support the church’s stance on gay marriage, but it’s not a decision that I made lightly or without a lot of thought and prayer. I still sympathize with those who want gay marriage, but I cannot support it. The following article I found to be the best I have read on the subject to date. The author doesn’t have a stance on gay marriage and she makes some excellent points about the issue.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Comment by DeeAnn — April 4, 2009 @ 6:07 am
Well Quimby, I’m here and supporting you 100% in what you have experienced as a personal revelation around this issue- because the same happened to me. It’s happened several times, in fact, most recently over the last few months after Prop 8 (and for the record, one does not have to reside in CA to care about the fact that my Church actively contributed in depriving people of civil liberties in a secular context.) Politically involved people in any state are aware of the importance of legislative and judicial decisions made in a state as large as CA. Even if I did believe that homosexuality is a sin, as an American, doing this to people is directly opposed to our founding philosophy and Constitutional protection of allowing every citizen the personal right to follow our own conscience and determine our own commitments- and throw in the pursuit of happiness as well, for the cherry.
For me, it means supporting all the same rights I enjoy as a citizen, and realizing that Church philosophy belongs within the church, not in the public arena. I simply do not have the right to dictate theological belief and practice. It’s borderline hysteria to think that having Polly and Molly next door, married and mowing their lawn, is impugning anything I do or believe in my private religious practice. They aren’t trying to go to the temple.
Oh- as to homosexuality being new, when the ruins of ancient Pompeii were excavated, artifacts depicting homosexual love and sex were found in abundance. These artifacts were hastily shut away in a special vault. But, they absolutely attested to the fact that homosexuality is no modern invention. Most certainly it existed in the time of Christ. Most certainly, he loved them too and bled for them as well.
My brother is gay, is living a very good life, and I’m absolutely certain he’s more worthy of the CK than I’ll ever be. I believe my summers living in Provincetown (an openly gay family community- which by the way, doesn’t discriminate against heterosexuals), running a bed and breakfast there and forming some of the most cherished friendships I’ve ever known, was Heavenly Father’s way of preparing me to help my beloved brother accept himself when he came out (he almost commited suicide over it…tried to pray it away in a Catholic high school). Being immersed in a gay community, learning and loving among some of the most open-minded and beautiful souls I’ve ever come across, has enhanced and blessed my life. If this was Satan’s doing, it would have been some bacchanal, hedonistic, spiritually devoid experience…but it was nothing of the sort. It was a deeply spirtual time. It launched my dedication to community nursing. It helped me know on the deepest levels that the type of sex enjoyed by consenting adult partners in any combination, has very little to do with education, ambition, career choice, talent, parenting or spirituality. It’s as individual and diverse as it is among the heterosexual population. It’s really that simple and I really believe that it’s a truth that Christ struggled mightily to help us understand. People are people. Don’t hurt each other.
Comment by Kimberly — April 4, 2009 @ 6:54 am
#130 Latter day Guy- I felt the sadness seeping through your comment and I am in a similar place. I do realize that as I continue to reject some very important doctrinal concepts, I really am in a process of having one foot out the door…mainly because I can’t keep saying that I belong to a club that only drinks from blue cups and continue to show up drinking from a red one and not offend. The last two years has been about me trying to figure out how to enjoy the drink but get away with the red cup.
Comment by Kimberly — April 4, 2009 @ 6:54 am
If it is true that there is a scientific basis for homosexuality, then that’s another comparison with alcoholism, because research in the the last few years has identified the GABRG3 gene as a factor in alcoholism. And yet I’m not allowed to use “made that way” as an excuse for being drunk.
Also, I think sexual orientation is a bit more pliable than that because it is very common for young people to experiment with homosexual relations, then move on to a happy marriage in adulthood. In US universities, there is even a term for it: LUG, or “lesbian until graduation.” And studies in England show that male experimentation in boarding school is common but most go on to happy heterosexual relationships.
Comment by Naismith — April 4, 2009 @ 7:20 am
As early as 1993, a genetic researcher named Haman had established correlations between chromosomes 7,8 and 10 and expressed homosexual orientation. 60% of gay men had the same pattern of arrangement. As you say, similar markers have been discovered in alcoholics as well as overeaters and the predisposition to various conditions and diseases.
Note that genetic markers also exist for everything we consider positive, and I’d venture to guess, what one person views as a positive trait another may debate the opposite position. (I like read hair and freckles vs. I don’t like freckles, but the red hair is okay.) It’s all very subjective.
Historically, we have judged sexual practices between consenting adults (note I am not adding victimized types of sex in this argument) as either good or bad, depending on cultural mores or religious values. What if they are just different? Sure, there is the procreative argument, but if that were true, then the second my menstrual cycles stop, I should stop having sex, because we’re not producing. But people don’t stop wanting sex just because they aren’t having babies and why have the inbuilt ability to orgasm if we weren’t supposed to be having it for pleasure? In point, millions of heterosexual couples, both fertile and infertile (by choice or design) are engaging in sex without creating a child…so it cannot be the only inherent reason to have sex. Enter homosexuality- which, in more recent research, hormonal proportions also influence the expression of this trait. Stepping outside the religious box, it’s hard to see anything other than hetero prejudice at play here around the expression of a preference. Difficult to see anything other than the usual desire to be a part of a majority that feels superior- more right or normal. It’s a concept that has dragged us into the muck again and again. Studies on homosexual families have suggested that homosexuality in the parents has no bearing on the sexual orientation of the children (so, it’s not contagious, as has been asserted by some factions). Outcomes in childrearing mimic the same results as they do for hetero families- mainly, is the parental relationship strong and supportive, commited and dedicated to the well-being of the family unit- if yes, then the children are happy, productive and indistinguishable from the general population. Hmm. That doesn’t sound like allowing marriage is bad for children of homosexual couples.
Who is to say that the evil at the end of the world doesn’t have more to do with self-described Christians engaging in unloving acts of judgment and repudiation of full equality of all people? Why wouldn’t Satan find it more fun to incite Christians to persecute and hate…since it is what God most abhors? Christ went to some pain to establish loving God and our neighbor as the two most important commandments.
Even if, on a personal level, a Mormon cannot accept homosexuality as a sanctioned practice, why not limit it to the confines of religious belief, where it belongs? Just as with the WoW, how dare we inflict our covenants upon other people- not even the Almighty does that. How dare we, when there is absolutely no proof that a homosexual marriage affects anyone but their own family- and in all the same ways our own marriages do?
Comment by Kimberly — April 4, 2009 @ 8:17 am
#42 made an interesting point with “Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s (1896) ruling which upheld the constitutionality of separate but equal. The segregation laws were justified by that Supreme Court decision.”
The LDS church segregates its women with the same excuse of “separate but equal”. Women are treated as “lesser souls” who cannot hold leadership roles in the “male only” priesthood. They are give a separate club (RS). They are to “hearken” to their male superior upon temple marriage. They are not treated with the same priviledge and preference as males in the LDS church. In my stake, I can’t even pay tithing under my own name as it is recorded only under my husband’s name.
Is the objection to gay marriage because it would be a marriage of equals? Would it be a better world if all souls were treated as equals?
Comment by Jo — April 4, 2009 @ 9:18 am
ECS,
This is such a nicely-worded post. I love the comparisons you draw.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — April 4, 2009 @ 9:33 am
“I don’t think homosexuality is a characteristic; I think it’s a temptation that can be so strong in some cases that it may FEEL like a characteristic. […] Bottom line: It’s certainly not a clear-cut case like race or gender.”
I’m afraid that the onus is on you then (or those who would make this argument) to show why this is so. If those who experience SSA characterize it as an inborn characteristic, one who would argue otherwise has to be able to marshal some very convincing data to their cause, otherwise it’s nothing but argument by assertion.
In any case, I have to disagree. Alcoholism may be a genetic weakness, but an alcoholic doesn’t stop needing other nourishment; winos still like food. However, homosexuals––attracted as they are to their same sex––usually do not experience an attraction to the opposite sex. If we were dealing with bisexuality then that argument might be more applicable. If it were merely an addiction, why are there many celibate homosexuals within the Church, but a far, FAR lower number of mixed-orientation marriages that do not end in divorce?
Comment by Latter-day Guy — April 4, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Merely? This really, really, really understates what addicts go through to live a sober life.
Except that one does not NEED sex to stay alive, the way one needs food. Also, a lot of drug addicts do stop eating food, which makes detox more difficult on their malnourished bodies.
Comment by Naismith — April 4, 2009 @ 10:38 am
And there are many others who have prayed and received witness that they should stick with the GA’s. So either God is leading one side astray as a sick joke, or one side is unable to properly interpret divine revelation.
So, you, as a gay marriage advocate, claim personal revelation, and others who are in opposition to gay marriage claim personal revelation. Hummmmmmmmmm, what to do?. How shal we break this tie….
Oh wait a minute. There is that little thing about this Church being led by Prophets. There is that minor detail about…..oh, what are they called….oh yea..Priesthood keys.
Wow, that settles it. The Church claims to be the instrument through which God speaks to and guides His people. Supporting gay marriage, which has been so clearly spoken against by the leaders, is an act which sets you in an adversarial position to the Church.
If I joined a stamp collecting club, and suddenly I felt that we should all be talking about coin collecting instead, should I just find a new club? Or should I stick around and cause divisions.
Comment by sam — April 4, 2009 @ 10:44 am
This is not a zero-sum game, a for-against dichotomy. Being against “gay marriage” does not make one anti-gay. As I’ve shared before, my daughter’s best friend in elementary school is the child of a woman who decided she was a lesbian, but the family chose to remain together (albeit moving to a larger house with separate bedrooms for mom and dad) because they believe that a family with a mom and dad is the best way to raise children. Not every homosexual supports “gay marriage.”
In many European countries, gays have opted for civil unions rather than insisting on the term “marriage.” I don’t think those couples are any less committed in their partnership. Their rights are exactly the same as those in the US who marry. But it is much more acceptable to those around them, who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Should they care about such things? I dunno. If I could get what I wanted–and I agree that gay partners should have access to medical decision-making and health insurance, etc.–without offending others, I would do so.
Similarly, my non-LDS family has a lacy white dress that they have always used for christenings in their faith. I could have usurped it and used it for my children’s blessings. But a blessing is not the same thing as a christening, and out of respect for them, I did not insist on using it.
If the definition of marriage is being changed, that darn well does affect me. It doesn’t mean that I dislike gays or am trying to deny anyone their civil rights. It’s just that I think words should mean something.
Comment by Naismith — April 4, 2009 @ 10:49 am
“Personally, I feel no doubt that Satan has largely inspired the gay movement to legitimize sodomy-based relationships as a valid lifestyle….”
You must hold a rather expansive definition of sodomy, or all my lesbian neighbors just got off the moral hook.
Regardless, thanks for that long comment. I must admit that it made me laugh, sorry. “Sodomy-based relationships” is a keeper. You’re over a decade behind on your science, though. (Thanks for taking a whack at that in 154, Kimberly. Great start) The Wiki entry you link to is pretty good.
Anyone interested in learning more about how gays and lesbians should study up a bit on our history. For example, watch The Times of Harvey Milk (original version is available free here.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 4, 2009 @ 10:54 am
re: 140
There have always been thriving homosexual communities (no, the term “homosexual” wasn’t coined until the last couple centuries, but there have always been descriptions of, references to, and depictions of sexual acts between people of the same sex). Homosexuality and the desire for homosexuals to be accepted as human is hardly a recent development. Just because they were forced by necessity to keep it quiet doesn’t mean they weren’t there. I believe that forcing them to make some public pretense, to be “in the closet” is itself a hypocrisy.
In that, the Church has nothing to fear, because nothing that the government does would change how the Church defines matrimony. The Church should always have the right to determine what constitutes legitimate marriage within the faith (including polygamy, which wrongly denied them in early Church history). We should accord other faiths and organizations the same right.
Which means you want this nation to be a theocracy–a Mormon theocracy, of course–which is completely contrary to the principles upon which this nation was founded.
I wonder why you don’t trust the persuasive power of the Spirit to make the case for our definition of marriage, and would rather use government coercion?
If you can’t see how restricting the liberty of other peoples and Churches to define for themselves according to their consciences how marriage is defined is forcing our beliefs on others, then you simply do not understand liberty.
Comment by Derek — April 4, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Naismith
Gays are not settling for second class citizenship in Europe. The List of Countries offering marriage equality is expanding.
Would you agree that working diligently to strip Mormons of their Civil Rights isn’t anti-Mormon? Suppose such people believe Mormons are an abomination to God and so spend much time and money to ensure Mormons are denied Civil rights? Would you believe those people aren’t anti-Mormon since they are just obeying God.
The United States is not a theocracy, and religious dogma should not be the law of the land.
I find it amazing all the people who maybe somewhere met a gay person and now know exactly how they think and feel. My uncle Max’s third cousin Milllie’s best friend is Gay and she loves being oppressed. She recognizes she is not worthy of being a full citizen.
Yes, Words matter. I am married to my wife. This means what it says. Deal with it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 4, 2009 @ 11:33 am
I can’t help but put in my two cents. I live in Massachusetts and there are gay and lesbian parents and families, etc. and everyone is healthy and happy. That said, I know people who moved to Masschusetts from else where, who shared with me their horrific stories of coming out of the closet and reaction by friends and family (note: this is not true for everyone). The negative reaction to everyday people who are gay, lesbian and bisexual can cause trauma that can last for years. The stories I have heard had broken my heart, shattered it to pieces. I can’t help but wonder, right belief is one thing, but what about the well-being of others? Since when should our “right” to have a belief cause other people trauma, pain and suffering?
I agree Derek’s emphasis on the liberty of other peoples and Churches to define for themselves according to their consciences how marriage is defined. Moreover, I think, if a view is going to be put on a state or federal law, the well-being of all need to be considered and the potential for harm (not just for the LDS community but for all) needs to be weighed. But in the same light, whenever a state and federal makes a law the needs of the LDS community should also be weighed (as was stated earlier when the persecution of LDS was mentioned).
Comment by youngfeminist — April 4, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Just a note to congratulate ECS on an outstanding post and blog site. You basically have nailed it concerning double standards and inconsistencies.
What is still missing from all of these discussions about SSA is the element of encratism in the Lord’s teaching. (e.g. Mat. 19.12 ‘let him receive it [childlessness] who can,’ Isa 54.1, ‘children of the desolate,’ Rev. 14.4 ) etc. The same position is reflected in the earliest church practices.
However, when the Roman empire took over in the 3rd c. these doctrines were politically inconvenient and so were downplayed.
Mormon doctrine regarding families is completely contrary. I am not criticizing Mormonism — perhaps the Lord has indeed given new, updated revelation. I am simply pointing out the contradiction with earlier positions, and also, wish to interject this into the discussion about SSA, because SSA becomes a viable and desirable solution, if indeed the Lord ever taught encratism as preferable (though of course never ‘mandatory’ or even expected: simply a higher state, as He said.)
Thanks again for your unusually good site ECS.
Comment by Dave in Calif. — April 4, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
re: 160
The concept we refer to as marriage has shown a rich diversity of meaning across the cultures of the planet, and has evolved in each of those cultures over time. Concepts change (think Not Ophelia’s post last year about the evolution of marriage). To think that we have the right to set our definition in stone through the law for people outside our own society (ie, the Church) is a sign of hubris. And while doing so doesn’t necessarily mean one is homophobic, it absolutely does mean the denial of civil rights, because the movement to restrict marriage is based on the premise that there are certain rights available only under marriage.
Comment by Derek — April 4, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
You make a valid point, Sam, I don’t deny it, I grapple with it daily. On the other hand, the church, since its restoration, has been run by prophets and doctrine has changed- let’s use the black priesthood as the handy example. There were many saints who had plenty to say about the priesthood being witheld, people who knew for a long time before the policy (ahem, excuse me, doctrine) was changed. Blacks certainly knew it…definitely felt Heavenly Father’s equal love. Saints had received personal revelatory confirmation long before the change was made and it was contradictory to what GAs taught. GAs who openly spoke against it did a 180 afterwards. It’s not that hard to do, I’ve done it in my own life a number of times when I’ve discovered I’m wrong- except, I usually blush, apologize and get on with things. The great face saving public relations patch comes in the form of “it just wasn’t time, we changed in the Lord’s time”. As if God is the one who changed…
Comment by Kimberly — April 4, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
RE 158,
I apologize for my ill-chosen words. I would never mean to minimize of belittle the struggle of an addiction. I used the word “merely” to suggest that looking at homosexuality as if it were an addiction is too facile and pat as an explanation. I don’t think that homosexuality fits the requirements of the term. As usual, brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
People may be genetically predisposed to a particular addiction, but chemical/psychological dependency cannot be claimed until there is some trigger: you aren’t an alcoholic until you’ve had alcohol, you aren’t a porn addict until you’ve viewed something pornographic. Sometimes this exposure is not the choice of the addict (FAS babies, etc.) but the genetic predisposition is not in itself the addiction.
On the other hand, a homosexual can be homosexual even if they have never been involved in gay sex, viewed gay porn, masturbated, been abused, etc. That is, their actions are a choice, but their attractions are not. I am not arguing that sex is a need like food is, but rather that it is a natural hunger.
As the drug addicts you mentioned, who become malnourished due to their drug use, progress through the withdrawal symptoms and perhaps enter programs to overcome/manage their addictions, the inborn desire for food will reassert itself. On the other hand, homosexuals who are completely chaste (or have overcome sexual addiction) do not generally come to manifest heterosexual attractions (which are from a simple biological point of view, normal and desirable). When dealing with homosexuality within the Church, I would suggest that the major problem is not the presence of undesirable sexual attraction, but rather the lack of desirable sexual attraction.
Most addictions seem to be an aberrant hunger superimposed upon a complement of natural hungers, even to the point of occluding the natural drives. However, when an addict can manage or resist the aberrant hunger, the natural ones still exist and can be met. For most homosexuals, such is not the case; rather, it is the orientation of a natural hunger in an ‘unnatural’ direction. Refusing to feed or give in to that drive does not tend to reorient its direction.
Simply put, treating homosexuality like an addiction can keep those who are exclusively homosexual celibate, but it won’t make them heterosexual. This is a level of complication not present in most cases of addiction. Ultimately, then, CB’s approach is not a satisfying solution.
Comment by Latter-day Guy — April 4, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Bravo, ECS.
Comment by Kaimi — April 4, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Ah, sam - the Mormon equivalent of ;love it or leave it.”
Why is it that opponents of gay marriage feel it is so appropriate of them to call intp question another person’s righteousness and right to personal revelation? Is the idea of a loving, understanding God that difficult a belief for you? Is it too terribly hard for you to wrap your head around the concept that God does not require uniformity?
Nah. Far easier to say we’re unrighteous, Satan-loving apostates.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
ECS, honestly, I just am sad that you feel this way about being a woman in the Church. (And surprised that there are as many here who so quickly agree with this point of view.)
I know I can’t convince you otherwise about your beliefs on this. But I am so sorry and hit-in-the-gut sad that you feel cast aside in this way (and I’m sorry for gays who feel this way, too). I wish I could somehow package what I feel — what I know — and share it with you, with others.
And yet, I know we all have our struggles in this journey called life, with the thing called faith.
I’m deeply sorry for your pain. I hope you can find strength in what you do know and feel and love about the gospel.
Comment by m&m — April 4, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
I have been struggling with this issue since they read the letter about supporting gay marriage bans in the election back in 2004. I walked out of sacrament with my newborn to sit in the mothers’ room and cry. Since then I’ve tried to figure out how to reconcile this. I have a testimony and love this church. I didn’t know about this blog back then, so I never spoke to anyone else about it. My parents are not members and are very supportive of gay marriage, my in-laws are mormon and conservative, and I’ve never talked politics with anyone at church as I live in a bible-belt conservative area. The “we all have our crosses to bear” explanation appealed to me although I always wondered if gay people found it demeaning. My question was answered on a response to a previous post comparing alcoholism to homosexuality. I love this church and would never consider leaving or becoming inactive, but I can’t support restricting the rights of people who are different than me.Since that letter I have wrestled with the idea of sending a letter to the prophet, explaining how I feel about this issue and asking how to reconcile this, but then I thought I was the only mormon who felt this way. I am curious, does the leadership of the church know there are members who feel this way?
Comment by Kimarie — April 4, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
ECS- I don’t really share your theory here, but I respect your opinion. I don’t feel the same was as a woman in the church. Actually, at dinner tonight, my daughter and I had a priesthood conversation and she was quick to talk about schools in Pakistan (they are covering it in school), where the girls are not allowed to go to school and just have to “make dinner for the family [her words].” Anyway, I just don’t make the same connection that you do, but I also don’t feel the anger and oppression either.
Quimby- I agree that people can have their own revelation on matters concerning the church. Isn’t that what we are advised. Even though the Prophet holds the keys, we are still asked to pray for ourselves and our own knowledge. I know lots of members who prayed about the prop 8 stuff and had different outcomes and I believe all are supported by the Lord. Only he knows my thoughts, right?
Comment by Katie — April 4, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
I’m late to this, but I wanted to say right on Quimby! I’m behind you 100% because I had the exact same experience myself and no one will ever convince me that that revelation was wrong or invalid. And many people have tried because I *do* live in California and am therefore apparently allowed to have an opinion on this.
Wonderful post ECS. I’ve been rejoicing for Iowa and hoping with all my heart that the church leaves it alone.
CB - I try to avoid engaging in online debate because I don’t find it fulfilling, but I have to say that I hope you recognize how you’ve gone to far and feel properly embarrassed about that.
You’ve trotted out your experiences with the gospel and bragged about your time with the ensign and then can’t be respectful enough to allow someone their own testimony. I know things can get away from us online, so I truly hope that you got caught up in some misquided intellectual exercise and forgot that you shouldn’t be treating anyone here any differently than you would treat them in person. If I were going to be as judgemental to you as you’ve been to others, then I would tell you that you may have the gospel in your head but you do not have it in your heart.
But I don’t believe that. I think you just made an ass out of yourself today and normally you must be a worthwhile person.
Comment by reese — April 4, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
I remembered a scripture that encapsulates why I think the LDS Church did the right thing on Prop 8 and should keep trying to rally the people of America along these lines:
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
I think when this will really get interesting is when gay marriage makes it to the federal level within a few more years or decades.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 4, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
#174: Bah, no regrets on this end. The reason I brought up my Mormon background is because Mfranti commented as if I were some kind of oddball embarrassment for which she felt the need to apologize, when in reality I’m well seasoned to communicate ideas that come from deep within the church (not without my own idiosyncracies added in, I admit; and I certainly wouldn’t claim to be free of ego, either; it’s hard to be any kind of effective writer/communicator without some healthy self-confidence).
The main reason I like to let loose in this discussion from time to time in somewhat hostile venues like this is because I suspect that for every person who is vocal about their pro-gay-marriage stand and about their disdain for the Church’s involvement in the issue, there are one or more silent readers of comments who are still trying to figure out where they stand on the issue, and I hate to sit by and not try to communicate the orthodox Mormon side, for those still weighing the evidence.
Personal disparagement like what you just said about me, calling me a judgmental ass, just comes with the territory, that tired old ad-hominem copout often resorted to when other rhetorical devices aren’t strong enough to effectively counter the orthodox position. I don’t expect that my position will convince anyone who’s actively debating the anti-Church side; it’s the undecided onlookers I’m hoping to influence. Don’t be persuaded by so-called Mormons who go counter to the prophet, even if they claim to have received their own revelation from God!
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 4, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
Sorry, the scripture reference that goes with my comment #175 is Mosiah 29.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 4, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
CB, in case you haven’t figured it out, calling people like me “anti-Church” and “counter to the prophet” and all of the other things you’ve called me on this thread - kinda the same as Reese saying you’re acting like an ass. Except in her case, she’s actually right.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
By the way, this is the last time you call into question another person’s personal righteousness. Next time you do it, you’ll find you and your assy opinions stuck in moderation hell.
Comment by Quimby — April 4, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
So, many of the things that I would say have already been said. I appreciate the varied opinions here, and the insight that reading some of them can bring.
One thing I find interesting is CB’s reference to living “orthodox” Mormon teachings compared to the beliefs of some other people posting. I’m too tired to figure out how to word this precisely, but it seems that the church has to allow for some kind of diversity and local influence in all of the wards. Yet, I think that sometimes trying to make everyone have the same belief system is really boring. The fact that we all have different perspectives brings a richness and joy to life that wouldn’t be available if we all shared the same beliefs, at least IMO.
So, CB, are you essentially saying your view is more correct? That every ward in the church should be sterilized to preach exactly the same things without the allowance of unique individual experiences?
And again, I agree with Derek in his analysis of how government should function.
Lastly, if you were to confer with a gay or lesbian individual, don’t you wonder how they would view your religion? Just as you view them as heretics and minions of Satan, don’t you think that their views of your religion are clouded by the actions you take?
Not that I expect any LDS person to confer with gay people, but stereotypes need to be broken down on both sides.
Oh, and I’m not sure if its true or not, but I remember hearing about some organization trying to ban Mormon Temple marriages in New York State.
Comment by nategiggles — April 5, 2009 @ 12:09 am
I’m under the impression that it’s the Lord who objects to SSM–And No, He doesn’t ‘hate’ gays. Neither does His church. But His idea of “marriage” has a certain purpose that cannot be achieved in a SSM. And He’s the one who says how it is to be done–no one else.
He is God and we follow Him. It is not vice-versa.
Comment by mary — April 5, 2009 @ 12:12 am
#167: Ah, the old “the same thing is going to happen with the gay issue as happened with the black issue” argument. “Boy, won’t you prophet-following sheep all feel dumb when the church eventually sees the light and accepts gay marriage.”
Here’s why I think it’s different this time, and I’m open to correction if I get any history or interpretation wrong: With the black race issue, it seems like individual GAs gave their opinions for reasons why the church didn’t give the priesthood to blacks, but I don’t think the church ever had an official unified position that rose to the level of today’s practically scriptural proclamation on the family.
And the Church, to my knowledge, never openly resisted the civil rights movement in any organized way, although I understand that some individual GAs expressed concern about some of the militant aspects of the civil rights movement.
However, the Church leadership is obviously quite intensely unified about resisting the gay rights movement, at least at the marriage level. We have the proclamation, and we have organized campaigns and efforts against gay-rights efforts. That signals a whole different ball game. The church ain’t going to back off from this one; there’s too much solid doctrine and theology behind it, not the sketchy mark-of-Cain stuff used by individuals here and there to justify the racial ban.
With the racial issue, our society moved in a positive, godly direction and the church eventually came around. I agree it’s disappointing that the church didn’t lead out in this area and took so long to change its racist policy. With the gay issue, though, society is moving in the direction of ungodly, permissive, radical change that the church cannot abide or capitulate to. Some people may indeed be individually unaccountable for their homosexual orientation, and we’ve got to find better ways to help them deal with this challenge, but legitimizing the sin of sodomy with marriage status ain’t the way.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 5, 2009 @ 12:18 am
I totally agree that would be problematic. It isn’t what happened. The church did not propose elimination of gay marriage. The church encouraged members to JOIN WITH OTHERS who had similar views, the majority viewpoint, as it turned out. Other states had similar referenda, and the church did not get involved, in part because there was not a pre-existing group with which to join.
Not even close. There are all kinds of other legal remedies available to folks who want to share their lives together.
Comment by Naismith — April 5, 2009 @ 12:35 am
Please don’t paint us all with the same brush.
I have great sympathy for anyone struggling with this issue. I can comprehend that faithful members could come down on either side, across a wide spectrum of views.
Comment by Naismith — April 5, 2009 @ 12:38 am
Thank you, Naismith. I have to say that you and M&M and some others on “your side” (as it were) are quite sympathetic, and I really do appreciate that.
Comment by Quimby — April 5, 2009 @ 12:41 am
Regarding the church’s involvement in prop 8, this was a great blog posting that outlines it well. Frankly I think the church has every right to encourage members on how to vote on particular issues. That doesn’t mean you have to actually vote that way. Why belong to a church and a belief system that you don’t subscribe to in whole? I can understand ones struggle to come to terms with some teachings, but being against some parts and for other parts of the church that you believe is the only true church on the earth seems counter productive. However, that said, I hope all who question can find their answers. Just be careful not to follow the philosiphies of men (or women) to unhappiness and regret.
Much of this discussion reminds me of Elder Uchtdorf’s talk during the PH session. Your focusing on one light that you think is incorrect in your life and trying to find a way to reconcile it, but in the meantime your life is about to crash. Pay attention to what matters and be careful of the insignificant.
And I don’t think there is such a thing as a gay mormon. There may be mormon’s that are fighting gay tendencies and urges just as other fight drug, adultery and various temptations but that doesn’t make them gay. Acting on the urges is the sin, having urges but controling them and avoiding temptation makes you a better person and makes you a worthy church member. There is no such thing as a gay or drug addicted or adulterous mormon. Once a person acts on those and is no longer trying to repent and overcome them, they are no longer a true mormon. They can be if they choose to since that’s the opportunity and blessing Christ has given us all but defining a member of Christ’s church by their sin isn’t accurate.
Comment by Brian — April 5, 2009 @ 2:19 am
Oops, forgot to provide the link about prop 8, here you go: http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-politics-the-lds-church-and-proposition-8
Comment by Brian — April 5, 2009 @ 2:19 am
This isn’t an issue of any church being against gay people or discrimination against them. People of all faiths have gays in their families. ( Didn’t the LDS Church just state that it would be supportive of gays having certain rights usually only married people or family have such as visiting the hospital, etc? I know I read that somewhere like on LDS.org.)
God is the author of the institution of marriage. He said “man and woman” and He won’t be mocked. SSM is a mockery of what He intended. Any Judeo-Christian religion, not just the LDS Church, believes that. Why? Because it comes from God, not man.
Comment by msg — April 5, 2009 @ 2:33 am
Brian, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you don’t cherry-pick. Even the church cherry-picks. Marriage is a prime example of this: Marriage is between one mand and one woman? Since when? This isn’t actually what we’re taught. This isn’t actually what we practise in the temple, where one man can be sealed to more than one woman.
msg - Refer to my message to Brian. The OT God said “man and woman and woman and woman and woman”. The NT is pretty silent when it comes to marriage. Furthermore, marriage is not strictly speaking religious; states have the authority to marry. Therefore, states have the right to marry or not marry whoever they please. Whether or not you or I or God recognises those marriages - well, that’s up to you or me or God. But the right itself is given by the state.
Comment by Quimby — April 5, 2009 @ 2:55 am
mfranti and Derek, sorry! I’m late to the party. I’ve been rehearsing for a run of “Mikado” coming up in a month.
As to the question at hand, no, I have no agenda to rule the world or force all to come to gayness.
I love the OP, and think the comparison is extremely valid, as are most comparisons between the struggles of various minority and oppressed groups to attain social justice.
The suggestion that the Iowa SC is “legislating from the bench” I have heard many times before (regarding most any and every higher court ruling to which someone takes exception). The fact is, if the court finds that a right exists innately, and that a given law violates the constitution by standing in the way of a group accessing that right fully, the court has every right, and, in fact a duty, to strike down the law, thus giving the group access to that right which was found to be theirs, from the beginning, even though it had been previously unjustly denied them.
Think of water moving down a stream. It has the right to find its level. However, someone places a dam in the stream. Water builds up behind the dam. The water which has built up behind the dam never flowed down that riverbed before, but when the dam is removed, the water does not have to wait to proceed down the riverbed. It simply goes.
When the USSC found that black people have the right to be treated the same as whites, to attend the same schools and share other basic public accommodations, and that “Separate but Equal” and “Jim Crow” laws were unduly preventing them from accessing that right, they declared those laws unconstitutional, and blacks forthwith had, and could exercise, the right to attend white schools and make use of other public facilities. They did not have to wait until someone passed a law specifically GRANTING them access to those accommodations. They may not have found it EASY to begin using those rights, but they had no obligation to refrain from doing so, nor did society have a right to expect them not to be allowed to do so.
As to the question of Mormon marriage, I become extremely frustrated when people conflate their church’s sacramental or religious blessing of marriage with the concept of CIVIL marriage, which is a civil contract between two persons to abide by certain caveats, and fulfill certain responsibilities under the law, and guaranteeing them in exchange, certain rights, privileges and protections as granted by federal and state authorities, such as the right to particular tax incentives or structures, rights governing their access to and control over children born within the union, rights to inheritance, federal and state spousal pensions, and so forth.
Because both institutions share the name “marriage,” people assume that their church, as the grantor of their religious title of “marriage,” should have the right to govern and control the dispensation of the term to all other people based upon their church’s criteria for marriage qualification, regardless of whether or not the other parties are members of that church or subscribe to its polices.
It would be as if the government enacted a contractual state in which business partners formed a Limited Liability Corporation, but the government called that structure a “Eucharist,” or “Good Gift.” Because catholic churches (and many protestant churches) use the term “Eucharist” to refer to communion or the Lord’s Supper, then, churches might begin to complain and claim that only those who were baptized and confirmed in their church, or otherwise met their church’s requirements for receiving the Eucharist, could be considered qualified by the government to enter into one of these LLC “Eucharist” contracts.
Civil marriage is granted by the government for civil purposes — inheritance, child custody, joint property, etc. As long as it has specific CIVIL rights attached to it, it cannot fall within the purview of any church to determine who is or is not qualified to enter into this civil contractual relationship. Churches are fully qualified and permitted to determine what couples may or may not enter into the CHURCH’S religious blessing of marriage, but cannot govern CIVIL marriages, simply because they share the same term.
If, on the other hand, all marriages, both gay and straight, are converted to some other terminology, such as “Civil Union,” “Domestic Partnership,” or “Squirrel Soup Sipping Buddies,” in which all partnerships, regardless of gender, have equal access to all benefits and responsibilities, both state and federal, then churches may be the sole arbiters of who is or is not qualified to be granted that church’s particular version of sacramental marriage.
In which case, we’ll all have civil unions AND have the title of “married” if we want it, anyway. Mormons can be Temple Sealed, Roman Catholics can be sacramentally married in their church, and I can be married by the accepting church of my choice, since there are many already who are willing to marry gays under the sacramental provisions of their denomination.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 5:22 am
And Brian, your church is wrong to use this nation’s legal system to impose it’s religious beliefs upon me and my family, and to discriminate against my innocent little children because it believes I’m a sinner.
Church’s which attempt to manipulate the legislation of this country to enforce their religious beliefs may well come to regret having done so and broken the barrier between church and state, because this barrier is what protects their right to worship as they please. Another group could just as easily come along and turn the system back against that church.
As long as the government is not involved in enforcing religion, it cannot enforce an unwanted religious belief on you, any more than on me. It goes both ways and it is for the protection of BOTH of our religious freedom. No one should be using the government to force others to live their religious beliefs.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 5:28 am
#182 The point, CB, which you may have missed, while you resorted to ascribing a position to me that I have never held, is that Church authorities have held certain doctrine to be true and believed they were godly positions and it later proved differently.
Comment by Kimberly — April 5, 2009 @ 8:06 am
CB- regarding the civil rights movement and the church’s official position.
Brigham Young revoked black PH, while Joseph Smilth had allowed it. In 1863, President Young stated in a letter, “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Emphasis mine)
In the scope of Mormonhood, there is no greater position of damnation than to withold the priesthood from a male…and if a black woman cannot marry a white priesthood holder, then the promises of the covenant are witheld from her too…and their progeny. In the eternal picture, that’s even worse than witholding the vote or citizenship. Like the position taken against gays, it was doctrinal, which in LDS orthodoxy, trumps political positions and already informs the obedient Mormon what the official position is.
That’s an official position that was maintained until Spencer W. Kimball countered it, after the church was threatened with losing its tax exempt status and various tourism and sports event boycotts.
The PoF is simply a document that makes the position against homosexuals doctrinal, and thereby informs the orthodox Mormon how one should vote. Add the fact that women don’t hold the PH, so we are not equal to men, and there you have the church’s stance on ERA too- and we all know that was an organized action. The church tried to stay politically and publically neutral on black civil rights, because it was an unpopular position even among men- but equal rights for women has historically been even more feared than rights for males of any color. Black males had the right to vote before women did.
While the BoM assures us that America was created for the presentation of the restoration of the Gospel, the missing part of that picture may be that America was also created upon principles that would force the church to align it’s doctrine correctly when it needed to progress. Like polygamy. Black priesthood. Perhaps the church being situated and subject to the laws of the land, also serves as a check and balance, influencing for the better, the evolution of doctrine that is not of God… The American Public sector forced a re-evaluation of LDS doctrine on several occasions, and perhaps that is exactly what Heavenly Father intended by locating the church in American borders.
Just a thought.
Comment by Kimberly — April 5, 2009 @ 9:05 am
And I don’t think there is such a thing as a gay mormon. There may be mormon’s that are fighting gay tendencies and urges just as other fight drug, adultery and various temptations but that doesn’t make them gay. Acting on the urges is the sin, having urges but controling them and avoiding temptation makes you a better person and makes you a worthy church member. There is no such thing as a gay or drug addicted or adulterous mormon. Once a person acts on those and is no longer trying to repent and overcome them, they are no longer a true mormon. They can be if they choose to since that’s the opportunity and blessing Christ has given us all but defining a member of Christ’s church by their sin isn’t accurate.
Wow–I don’t really know where to begin with this. Of course there are gay Mormons. I’m one. I likes the girls. I’m a girl. I’m a Mormon. How hard is that to believe? Yet, here I am. Not a figment of someone’s imagination, like Santa Claus. In my ward is a woman who is one of the strongest Mormons I know. Whenever she speaks in church, she always says she is a drug and alcohol addict. Again, not a figment of someone’s imagination.
She’s not a sinner in the area of alcohol and drug abuse, at least not now, but that is who she is and who she’ll always be, at least in this life. She’s also a Mormon. I’m not a sinner in the area of homosexuality–I’ve never acted on it, and I don’t intend to. But I’m just as queer as anyone who’s ever acted on it.
And when you say that once a person acts on their sins and is no longer repenting then they are no longer a true Mormon, well, that’s silly. *Everyone* acts on sins, and *no* one is perfect in their repentence, so by your definition then, no one is a true Mormon.
Wow.
Comment by Erin — April 5, 2009 @ 10:06 am
@CB:
I can match your Mormon bona fides point for point and probably more. I’ve served in ward and stake leadership and been a supervisor in the temple.
And with all due respect, I find your position full of folk doctrine and speculation at best.
The uniquely LDS scriptures say not one word about homosexuality. The sole basis for the Church’s current stance is therefore the Bible, and (no doubt much to the shock of many Mormons like yourself) sound Biblical scholarship argues well for the proposition that none of the Biblical references commonly used by American cultural conservatives to condemn homosexuality actually supports that position. No space to recite it here, but the research and conclusions are out there for those who wish to confirm this.
Having never canonized anything about this issue since the Restoration, and with the founding prophet Joseph Smith saying nothing about it either, this means all statements by the Church about homosexuality rest on a Biblical basis which is questionable at best.
No doubt you will say that the words of a living prophet trump all else. My response will be that living prophets themselves have said that if anything we hear from their pulpit is not in accordance with the Scriptures then we have no obligation to believe it. And when what I do hear is an interpretation of scripture that is arguably flawed, then what?
To think that a handful of verses in Section 132 is the complete and comprehensive template for the eternal destiny of what must, proportionately speaking, be at least 100 million of God’s children, is laughable, especially if you actually believe the 9th Article of Faith and are willing to accept the possibility of revelation that could completely up-end your comfortable paradigms. Yes, the PoF does say marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. No quarrel there. But it does not say that “ONLY marriage between a (that is, one) man and a (one) woman is ordained of God. The Church’s own history belies this. Remember, the Prophet Joseph said that even the apostles themselves would be so outraged that they would try to kill him if they knew what he knew about how the eternities worked.
Nothing in your arguments, CB, necessarily excludes the possibility of same sex relationships in the eternities. The best you can defensibly say is that our knowledge is incomplete. If you truly believe the 9th Article of Faith then you must concede this.
Consider the illogic and incompleteness of the Church’s current position on this issue.
A generation ago it was proclaiming as a matter of doctrine and faith that homosexuality was a choice. Now it’s flipped on that. So when was/is the Church wrong?
Now the Church is conceding that this “core characteristic” may not change for some in this life. In which case, what afterward? The Church has no answers.
That hasn’t stopped it from telling its gay members that, while they may not be able to sustain a temple marriage in this life, they must nevertheless continue to deny their fundamental God-given need to love and connect with someone as the price of . . . well, again, of what? Stay celibate and single and lonely in this life so they can qualify in the next for something they don’t want anyway (marriage to someone of the opposite gender)? As I once heard someone say, that’s like telling a mathematician who hates poetry that if he denies his own nature and forces himself to read poetry all his life, then after he dies he’ll become a great poet. Now THERE’s an incentive.
To sum up in conclusion. The Scriptures are THE basis for our doctrine. No LDS Scripture mentions homosexuality, and those which talk about eternal marriage and destiny are brief and sparse. Much is unknown. Biblical verses which are used to condemn homosexuality are arguably misinterpreted when so used. The Savior never mentioned this issue, nor did Joseph Smith whose revelations are nearly 100% of the Doc & Cov. Statements by subsequent Church leaders about it rest on Biblical and cultural assumptions which are debatable. Mormons believe the canon of scripture is open and we expect more revelation about significant things in the future.
The best you can say CB is that based on your limited knowledge at present, you and the Church believe XYZ, and you must acknowledge that it is all subject to change.
On that basis, I find your condemnations disappointing and unfounded.
Comment by Alan — April 5, 2009 @ 10:27 am
Actually, just two weeks ago we had a high councilor come and give a talk in Sacrament meeting about “the highest and most important law of the gospel.”
Love, right?
No.
Obedience.
I wanted to bang my head on the pew and scream at him.
Comment by Kerry — April 5, 2009 @ 10:27 am
186,
You’ve got to be kidding. I may never understand the fixation of some LDS with refusing to use accurate terminology. “Gay” no more refers to sexual activity than “straight” does. These words refer to the gender you want to have sex with, and say nothing about whether a person is actually having sex. (I am aware that this is an oversimplification, and that sexual orientation is not strictly physical, but involves the whole range of intimacy and emotional needs.)
By your logic, Brian, one can just as easily say, “No, Sheri L Dew is not straight. She is just fighting straight tendencies until she gets married.” And I certainly hope you don’t share this crazy argument with, say, the young men in your ward. I imagine most of them wouldn’t appreciate being told that they are not “straight” (or “gay” for that matter) until they begin having sex. (OTOH, perhaps some would.)
In any case, arguments like yours DO have the benefit of obfuscating the real issue: the Church, historically and currently, hasn’t had a great history with homosexuals. There is a long trail of broken marriages which should never have been entered into, but were encouraged by church leaders, exBYU students who carry both physical and emotional scars due to the torture-like “treatments” they underwent as a requirement to attend “The Lord’s University,” and today, the most hopeful of counsel comes from Elder Holland: “Just hold on. This is not going to be a post-mortal problem,” which is certainly an improvement on electroshock torture, but when taken to its logical conclusion can be an invitation to suicide.
So yeah, Brian, I guess I can see why people sharing your view would want to focus the issue on semantics about the word “gay.” It’s a helluva lot easier than addressing the problems of actual homosexuals in anything other than facile bromides and generalities.
Comment by Latter-day Guy — April 5, 2009 @ 10:31 am
re: 176
Kind of like questioning the faithfulness and testimony of the alternative view?
re: 183
The fact that the Church did this in concert with a number of other organizations sharing our general beliefs on marriage does not change the fact that they (all of them together) were forcing their religious perception on others. Nor does the fact that they may have been in the majority matter; the principles which informed the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) were as much about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority as anything else. If we want to claim the right to limit liberty because of our majority, then we betray those founding principles.
Which are all more limited than marriage, which do not allow other faiths which believe homosexual marriage is legitimate to enact their beliefs within their faith, and which are standing on the morally shaky ground of “separate but equal.”
re: 188
No, there are a number of Christian and Jewish faiths which have accepted the principle of homosexual marriage. They are in the minority, yes; but if you assert the right of the majority to impose its will or discriminate against minority faiths or beliefs, then you open the door for legal discrimination against our own minority faith. Are you comfortable with that?
If those faiths are wrong, then they will suffer God’s consequences. Secular law should play no role in the matter.
re: 194
Thanks for sharing. Very powerful.
Comment by Derek — April 5, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
Lorain, you’re working on Mikado, and yet you didn’t comment on my being a modern major general on FaceBook? How rude!
Comment by Derek — April 5, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Maybe I need to take a break from this blog. I’ve enjoyed it so much till now. Personally I don’t like being compared to Homosexuals. I’ll state for the recored I have had many gay friends (years working in theater), but have also been abused by gay women. I am a woman, not an act of intimacy; to compare me like it has been is worse than objectification IMO.
Being a woman in the LDS church is VERY different than being Gay in America. I did not like that the LDS church was singled out for hate over the prop 8 thing and this changed my opinion over the whole matter. I side with the Church now. Also, other churches contributed. I don’t like that the Church states it’s not involved in politics when it clearly is, but when do we stand up for what’s right? “Who’s on the Lords side, who?” came to mind a lot over the last few months.
I don’t like how some things are worded in the Proclamation on the Family, but you know what it’s a PROCLAMATION from the Lord. I’ll debate conference talks and casual things from the 12 and the Prophet, but when it’s handed down with signatures and made a proclamation like sections in D&C. THAT is modern revelation - scripture - and in my mind the debate is over God has spoken.
Comment by Mother In Heaven's girl — April 5, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
ReA: 113
The Church wisely and selectively exercises its political muscles to hurt people who don’t fall nicely in line with the modeled “traditional” family of a male provider and a female nurturer.
I can attest to this. My Stake President and Bishop told me, upon my request to renew my Temple Recommend, that I am to:
“Wait until my husband wants to go to the temple, then I can go with him.:”
I pointed out that my husband had not expressed a desire to get his endowments, that I was the only one paying tithing (although it was always credited to him as they made the decision to put my tithing under his name, even when I asked them to put it under my name.)
They had required that my husband schedule the meeting and that I bring my husband to meet with the stake president.
There is poor oversight when stake presidents decide to use women to strong arm men into compliance.
I am denied my endowments because my husband, who converted a few years ago, in another stake, does not want to meet their requirements at this time. The follow up to this was worse. Confidentiality was violated and the Bishop decided to share some version of this with multiple women in the church. The two page letter admonishing me was received from another woman in the congregation. I offered to teach what the term “confidentiality” meant according to certified counselors and psychologists of the state of Washington. I expressed that this stake and my Husband and I were not a good fit and we may look for another stake. The Bishop said that I would have to “get permission” from the stake president. I said I wasn’t going to meet with the stake president again. When members experience “unrighteous dominion” from their stakes, the LDS church allows it. Members have no rights as it is a top-down organization.
I have a testimony that “God tries and man fails” without oversight from the general authorities, which we do not have as we are silenced and shunned when that occurs. I received an answer through prayer to “Ask for the change needed in the Church.”
The reaction from my dear husband to this experience was, “How can you stand to be in a church that treats you like a second class citizen?”
I am asking the LDS Church to provide individual rights to its members, both male and female, to recognize their individual contributions and not to use one of them to gain cooperation from another individual.
The last two home visitors that came to our house carried the message that:
(1) Pretend it never happended.
(2) then, from another person who was not a witness to this situation, that it never happended. (male home visitor)
(3) If it did happen, you must have done something to make them act like that. (from the first sister, who said to pretend it never happened)
I asked them to not visit us at our home again and was told that I would have to either remove our names from Church records or move our records. The last directive I received from the Bishop was that we couldn’t move to another Stake, unless we received permission from the Stake President. I can relate to the abuse church members have received from their wards when they do not meet the “ideal desired couple” stereotype.
Comment by Jo — April 5, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
I can’t help but comment, God help me.
This whole same-sex marriage crap fest has, IMO, only served one good purpose- revealing the hypocrites we all are.
on PERSONAL REVELATION- why is it so impossible to believe that the Spirit can testify one thing to one person and the opposite to another? Are we really so arrogant that we can’t see that maybe both sides are right and are only wrong in that we refuse to build a bridge or even look at our neighbor? Why is personal revelation only accurate when we agree with it?
on LOVING OUR NEIGHBOR- so on the “right” side we have members saying they love gays but then denying them rights and on the “left” side we have members saying “what about the commandment to love thy neighbor?” and yet totally turning their noses up to their brothers and sisters who are in support of things like 8. Sure we can tout righteous indignation but did Christ ever use that as an excuse? Methinks if he did we’d all be pretty screwed on an eternal level.
Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if the trials we face with things like Prop 8 don’t end at whether or not to support it but if we aren’t also being tested on how accepting we are of the other side. I feel this way about homosexuality as well- maybe it’s not just about the trial the homosexual faces (if you believe on a commandment level s/he does) but also about how we as people in homosexual’s lives treat them and love them, or don’t. It’s so easy for us to pass judgment on the trials and tests of others (especially on the interweb) but maybe we should be more concerned about how we act towards those trials- from sexual orientation to political ideology.
As for the church and homosexuality and same-sex marriage I am one of those Mormons who views homosexuality as not ordained of God (the action) and as another trial but is disgusted by the lack of humanity shown homosexuals. How we can put other’s rights up to a vote and somehow feel vindicated is beyond me. And as for homosexuality as sin- what of it? Why has THAT become THE issue? In my mind there are more dangerous sins that are bringing down our society and the church- greed and arrogance being the biggest. I’m really sick of hearing about how Steve and Alan being in a loving relationship is bringing me down in my home. Yeah, only if I let it and a lot of us are letting it, aren’t we? How many family dinners and other gatherings were missed so we could fight against “the gay”? What a waste. It hurts my heart (your snort here. Look, I’m pregnant with twins, uncomfortable and hormonal, cut me some slack).
If there is anything to be learned from Prop 8 and the whole same-sex marriage debate it’s the lesson of unconditional love and not just towards homosexuals. I guess it just depends on if we are willing to learn that lesson and live it. I know for me there are more than a few days where I want to break someone’s nose for supporting 8 or for bashing Mormons for supporting 8 (I live in CA, BTW and I am not saying anyone here is Mormon bashing). There are plenty of days the opportunity I am faced with for real growth totally falls flat on me. Today is actually one of those days. Maybe this post is therapeutic for me *shrugs*
Comment by MaggieFrances — April 5, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
#201
Jo,
Your experiences are shared by more than one woman, I know and I also know the opposite has been true for some women but you know it still just doesn’t make it right.
Isn’t the gospel be great without the church? I’m sure I’ll be shot for that but you know I think living in the church is my husband and I’s great trial. We have no doubt about the gospel but those damn Mormons….
Comment by MaggieFrances — April 5, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
BTW Jo I meant to convey my disgust and sadness for you. I don’t think that came across before.
Comment by MaggieFrances — April 5, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
To add to Alan’s #195, consider that the family proclamation says that gender is eternal–but it obviously isn’t referring to what is commonly understood as “gender,” since that varies across cultures and times.
Consider also that physical copulation results in physical children, not spiritual ones. God doesn’t create physical children through copulation (see Genesis 1 and 2). We have no idea how spirit children are created (though LDS doctrine says that “intelligences” have always existed), but I’ve never seen, heard, or read anything that says they couldn’t be created by two men or two women.
Perhaps gay marriage isn’t correct; I don’t know. But to argue against it on the basis of post-mortal procreation is silly. We don’t know enough about it.
Comment by Matt — April 5, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Jo- I’m really sorry about that experience. I know it happened because something similar happened to me. Remember when women couldn’t go to the temple without their husband’s permission? My first (non-member) husband refused. My bishop and stake president at the time suggested it was incentive from the Lord to convert my husband (who was having an affair at the time- what are the odds?). Not cool and I didn’t hesitate to say it. Thankfully, that rule has changed.
Comment by Kimberly — April 5, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Derek! I’m sorry! Had I known you were the very Model of a Modern Major General, I would, by all means, have saluted! I haven’t been on FB much, either.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Thank you MaggieFrances and Kimberly:
I appreciate the compassion for all of the women who have endured unrighteous dominion from men in the church who embellish the process and procedure to exclude members who do not fit their ideal stereotype from access and participation.
The note reminds me of a college friend, from Iran, who was required to have a letter, signed by her American husband, to travel in Iran, to visit her mother. Women also cannot represent themselves in any court action in Iran and must be represented by their husbands. When you said it changed, it hasn’t. I was asked if my husband approved of my request for a temple recommend 6 years ago. It only really changes when they are committed to changing the process and start treating us as equal souls, with equal rights to respectful treatment.
Regarding the Church’s very public involvement in prop 8:
My political view is that same gender couples need to have their relationship recognized on legal and political secular grounds.
The reason is the best interests of the children of these same gender couples.
A well known legal case from Washington State serves as an example and here are the details:
A same gender couple (females) decide to have a child. The birth mother’s job pays significantly more and is more stable. The non-birth mother becomes the stay at home mother for their child. Four years later, the birth mother decides to end the partnership and the primary caretaker has no rights to visit or provide for the child. For the child’s best interest, should a right be established to allow the primary caretaker of the child to continue, through visitation, the relationship she has provided since the birth of the child. As a counselor and psychologist in the schools, working with children, I know that these families require rights to a recognition of a committed partnership. I don’t care what name that recognition is given as I do not feel that it takes away from traditional marriage or from temple marriage.
I am pleased that the church now asks if parents are supporting their children as part of the interview process, if a separation or divorce has occurred, or if a child has been born out of wedlock.
You would be surprised how many parents do not provide for their own children. Not providing contact for the children of these tax paying couples is an omission of mercy.
Comment by Jo — April 5, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
#200 Mother-in-heaven’s-girl:
Yes, everyone who is prejudiced against gays, and does not want us to share equal civil rights, conveniently has “lots of friends who are gay.” It seems to be the case, in fact, for everyone who disputes the right to equality of any group. People who feel blacks don’t deserve the same rights as white people always seem to have scads of black friends, all of whom agree completely that equality with whites is highly overrated.
Please.
Yeah, you probably know quite a few gay people, if you have worked in theater, but I have considerable doubt as to how many of them would consider YOU a friend if you oppose their right to fully protect their spouses and children by way of equal and fair access to civil rights in this society. That’s simply not something which someone who is TRULY a “friend of gay people” would do.
I no longer go to the home of the person I formerly considered a “friend” but who donated to support Prop 8. If they are willing to harm my children in order to enforce the dictates of their religion on me, then they are NOT my friend, and I do NOT wish to place myself under their roof.
So let’s be clear, shall we? “Lots of gay friends.” No, I sincerely doubt it.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
#208
Jo,
I agree with what you said here. It’s just one example out of so many in the “consider the children” argument- and by that I mean truly considering the children in these relationships not how we think they should feel.
Comment by MaggieFrances — April 5, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Jo, #208,
Exactly so. In fact, I’d take it a step further and say that not only should the caretaking relationship of the non-bio mom in this case be recognized with liberal visitation rights, but moreso, the legal relationship to both parents of a gay couple should be automatic from birth, just as it is in the case of a straight couple who use donor gametes. This is the case in CA. In which case, both mothers have EQUAL right to the children should their marriage dissolve for some reason, and the children’s custody is then decided based, not upon which mother was the biological parent or birth mother, but upon exactly what arrangement will best serve the needs of the children, based upon ability to physically provide for the children, continuity of direct-contact care from the primary care-giver, and equal continuity of relationship and access by both parents, all of which are taken for granted as considerations when determining custody when straight parents split up.
Not allowing gays equal marriage rights, including full and equal access to and treatment under family law in their own state, puts children of gay parents at risk of disadvantage in the case of their parents divorcing, or in the case of one of their parents dying unexpectedly.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
By the way, MIHG, I have no idea what you mean by the following:
…but I must add that whatever bad experience you may have had with a lesbian at sometime in the past does not constitute a reason for depriving gay people of equal rights in society. I am no more responsible for the actions of the woman who hurt you than is Derek or Ray or mfranti or Quimby.
If you had a male boss who sexually harassed you, would you consider that a good cause for depriving all men of equal rights in society? If a black person did something to harm or wrong you, would you then consider that all black people are undeserving of equal treatment under the law?
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
IMHO the song “Modern Major General” is in and of itself enough of a reason to dismiss the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. I mean, if gays were actively serving in the military way back when, and in fairly high-ranking positions no less, why have we made it so hard on them now?
And don’t try to tell me the “modern major general” isn’t gay. It’s a showtune for crying out loud.
Comment by Quimby — April 5, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
:giggle:
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
I’ve come around to the belief that the Church’s efforts on Prop8 had nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with preserving our right to take a stand. Plus, leaders got to see who would and wouldn’t support them. Like a 21st-Century Zion’s Camp.
Comment by queuno — April 5, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
queuno, does that mean that all of our future leaders will have been on the forefront of this fight? That’s a kind of bleak picture in my book.
Comment by reese — April 5, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Sure felt like it was about gay marriage to me. But I understand there could be more than one point. Not that I like either one of them, or the net result.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
#12
There is no such thing as equality for all. God treats those who love him differently from those who disobey and seek to over throw his will.
Males and females are different in body structure and function for the purpose of reproduction. Non-celibate gays are breaking the first commandment given in the garden of Eden. To reproduce. Secondly the commandment to have no sexual relations except with their lawfully wedded husband or wife.
Being gay is not something that people are born as. This is an absolute lie. Each person chooses who they want to have sex with, where and when. These are choices that single and married heterosexuals make also. Those who choose to have sex outside of marriage also get treated the same as the homosexual. They are counseled to repent and get control of their feelings and thoughts.
Bottom line: Who with and when you have sex is your decision. Do not look for others to think it is right just because you think it is fun.
Comment by Brad — April 5, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
re: 215
Zion’s camp did not involve the violation of the liberty of others, a liberty essential to this nation and one which we are told was divinely inspired. Given that the support of Prop 8 or any other effort to ban homosexual marriage does involve such a violation, the analogy does not hold.
I would stress again that opposition to legal homosexual marriage restrictions does not ipso facto mean that one supports homosexual marriage. If you feel this is an issue upon which the Lord wishes us to take a stand, there are many legitimate ways to do so. Vocally exhort people to avoid homosexual relationships; create social support systems which help homosexuals stay celibate or become heterosexual (if you believe such a thing is possible); disown your friends and family who are homosexual; whatever discourages homosexual relationship–short of using government coercion or discrimination against others who do not share your religious convictions.
Comment by Derek — April 5, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Brad #218 — The old saw about not judging your neighbor until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins comes to mind.
In any case, I need to respond to this:
As to the first, I HAVE reproduced. I have the twin daughters to prove it.
As to the second, I have no sexual relations except with my lawfully wedded wife.
And, incidentally, I know with every fiber of my being that God made me exactly the way I am, AND loves me exactly the way I am. I live an honorable, moral life, loving my spouse and my children, caring for my responsibilities (well, maybe the laundry stacks up from time to time when I get too involved in a blog post, but…), and being kind to my neighbor. I attempt never to judge others (a la Jesus’ commandment), and when I do, it’s generally because they have hypocritacally judged me first, without ever bothering to know me.
I strive to love God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and to love my neighbor as myself. According to Jesus, “upon these two hang all the other commandments.”
Incidentally, also, I have to wonder if you are married, because if you are, I wonder why you would consider marriage merely “fun.” Marriage is a lot of hard work, no matter who you are married to. It is rewarding, certainly, but certainly not all about “having sex” or “fun.”
Please try to look beyond the stereotypes dancing around in your own mind before you judge the state of the immortal souls of millions of other people without ever having met them, and declare them unworthy of equal CIVIL rights because you consider them to be sinful according to your personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Derek, #219 - Fricking brilliant post.
If people believe that EITHER civil marriage for gays OR religious marriage for gays is sinful, they should by all means avoid engaging in either one. Churches should be, as they have always been and shall continue to be, the arbiters of who is or is not qualified to receive a religious blessing of marriage. As to civil marriage, let those who believe in it engage in it, and those who do not, NOT.
It just seems so simple, doesn’t it? I can’t imagine why it is such a difficult concept for people to grasp. If someone believes rock music is sinful, they shouldn’t listen to it. If someone believes it’s a sin to wear make-up, dance, or consume alcoholic beverages, then don’t do those things. But it’s not my business to force other people to follow MY religious beliefs. They are responsible to God for following their OWN beliefs, not mine. If I can convince them to believe as I do through gentle persuasion, great. But I cannot legislate them (or certainly SHOULD not be able to do so) into following my religious beliefs against their will. That’s NOT what this country is about.
Comment by Lorian — April 5, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Question for Brad, What country do you live in?
Despite the fact I’m one of Satan’s minions and God doesn’t like me much, this is the United States of America, and Equality under the law is one of the bedrock principles of liberty. It even applies to deprived, evil people like me.
And since I’m married, hey, all the sex is of the lawful legal kind. Oh, and we reproduced too.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 5, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
I don’t know why you felt the need to draw the distinction. Technically, celibate gays are also breaking this commandment.
Comment by Quimby — April 5, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Technically, celibate heteros are beaking that commandment, too….;)
Comment by mehzzdup — April 5, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Again, staggeringly, insanely wrong, Brad. Each person chooses who they DO have sex with (excepting cases of rape), but you don’t usually get to choose who you find sexually attractive. If that were the case, wouldn’t most LDS gays CHOOSE to “want to have sex with” people of a different gender? It would sure make being Mormon easier on them.
Words fail. How did you come by this magical knowledge, Brad? How are you privy to this though science has reached no consensus and Elder Oaks said that we (ie: the Church) do not know the causes of homosexuality, but there is likely a genetic element to it?
I am reminded of a quote from the very interesting movie, Milk:
Comment by Latter-day Guy — April 5, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
I read this entire thread. I’m very grateful for the generosity and fair-mindedness of many of the commenters. Bless you all.
I am almost physically sickened by the few who compare my family situation– my family situation!– to the social ills of alcoholism, drug use and promiscuity.
(As upsetting as this is, the comic relief provided by the TK Smoothie argument almost makes it worthwhile. I hope opponents of marriage equality will use this line of reasoning in their next time public policy debate.)
Here’s something that’s deadly serious. The harsh judgment of Mormon conservatives toward gay people puts the lives of young gay Mormons at risk. I almost don’t know any gay Mormon who didn’t at one point in his or her life feel suicidal. The Church does an abominable job in this area. There’s zero outreach to its youth who might be gay. In the words of a young gay LDS man of my acquaintance:
You might want to read that twice.
Comment by MoHoHawaii — April 6, 2009 @ 12:14 am
I apologize for the snark in advance.
People seriously still believe homosexuality is a choice? Seriously? It’s a joke, right? Like someone decided to post as the most out of touch person in the world or something, right? I am seriously at a loss.
Look Brad (if this is at all serious which I am praying it’s not) you’re right in saying we all choose who we have sex with but you know it’s just an itty bit more complicated when one takes into consideration we don’t consciously choose who we are attracted to sexually or otherwise. Then there is that inconvenient little factor of some people being unable to be in any sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex without feeling physically ill. But yeah, I’m sure people choose that last one.
As for the reproduction thing where does infertility come in with that? Are the infertile born sinners, too? Should we not waste marriage on them, either?
Comment by MaggieFrances — April 6, 2009 @ 12:49 am
MoHo,
The suicide issue is one every Latter-Day Saint needs to think long and hard on. How much of a hand have we as a people had in some of these deaths? I want us to ask ourselves that without reaching for the “it was their choice” crutch. It’s just so much more complicated then touting agency can explain away. So we didn’t literally kill but what have we done to prevent it?
Sorry I am not being very articulate right now….
Comment by MaggieFrances — April 6, 2009 @ 1:01 am
I am going to skip over the majority of the comments and respond to ECS’s original post.
I have been very thoughtful over the last year or so with prop 8. I was seriously he middle of the road voter and could not decide if I was for or against same sex marriage- not that my vote counted as I don’t live in CA. I went from support it fully to supporting the church fully and everything in-between, with my head full of the thoughts of Homosexual friends and relatives and what I hoped would finally be right for them and bring them joy.
ECS’s post clarified it for me. I am now definitely AGAINST same sex marriage. (Ah, yes, load your verbal bows with arrows and take take aim at your new St. Sebastian!)
Here’s my thing: Agency.
There is mortal agency is consensual sexual behaviour. The term consent means one has used their agency to decide what they want to do. If I want to have sex and my partner agrees, we have used agency. If I were unmarried and choose to follow the law of chastity, I can use agency to not be sexual. Likewise, I also had the agency to choose to engage in sex.
But for gender, I used NO mortal agency in choosing to be female. Perhaps I choose my gender in the pre-existence, perhaps it was assigned to me, perhaps it came by nature, but in this life, I am female. Period. No agency can ammend my XX chromosomes.
I can choose to be sexual. I have agency to think via my hormones and sleep with whoever I choose, regardless of their gender, or I can choose to use my agency to follow to commandments. I cannot choose my gender. To compare homosexual (perhaps an instinct, but still a choice to engage) to women (a gender determined by unchangeable chromosomes and biology) strikes me as ridiculous. I am offended by it. A man with homosexual tendencies who chooses to remain chaste can theoretically become prophet, whereas me- because of my darn XX chromosomes, is limited in my potential for ecclesiastical authority to the bland rank of ‘motherhood’. Female (no agency) and homosexuality (or any sexuality involving agency) just don’t compare, in my book.
Because I love and revere agency so much, it suddenly made sense for me the responsibility that we have with it. We all have challenges and trials associated with mortality- and some of those challenges happen to be sexual- homosexual, sexual addicts, infertility, you name it. (BTW, I have personally never viewed the command to “multiply and replenish” as only having babies. Planting trees, vegetables and other earthly items that I consume seems a better fit for me in using the term replenish.)
To further the idea of agency in regard to same sex marriages, I also look at the words used to describe the action in support it- fight, angry, livid, furious. Are pro-same sex people trying to win me over by using such aggressive words? If it were right, why not follow the leads of Ghandi or MLK and peacefully protest? Why become “angry”, “livid” and “furious” and pick a “fight”? If MLK can organize a boycott, why can’t pro-gay marriage supporters do the same on equally grand scale? Could it be because it is not a righteous cause? I think so now. By using agency to angrily progress a sexual cause that in this comparison has degrading my gender into something that is assumed changable has lost me to the same-sex marriage cuase for good. I am finally sure-footed against same sex marriage, based on ECS’s degrading argument.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 1:13 am
spunky,
I find it interesting that out of every post on this website, a single post referencing the struggle of women to analogize the plight of gay people in society decided how you would cast your vote.
You keep coming back to agency, yet there lies the logical fallacy of your argument. You say that you didn’t choose to be a woman, but don’t you choose to act like a woman? If you were make-up, is it because you are a woman? Do you take responsibility for your family at home and make dinner because you are a woman?
As many people have posted before, and the church acknowledges, LGBT people do not choose to be the way they are. I personally would not have chosen to be gay with the fact that my entire family is LDS. It just is what it is, and I make the best of it. When I act upon my attractions, it is not because I wanted to be attracted to those particular individuals. I just am.
And yes, I choose to act. But the choices laid before me are based upon the fact that I am attracted to the same gender, rather than the opposite like the majority of people. If someone told you to stop acting like a woman because it was wrong, could you?
Comment by nategiggles — April 6, 2009 @ 1:28 am
Why do people keep bringing up MLK? Back in the day he was seen as exactly the type of villian SSM protesters are seen as now. There were a lot of white people who were terrified of the man and thought he was way too violent and outspoken and really needed to cut back on the militancy. We don’t see it that way now. And honestly, I don’t see what about the SSM fight is seen as so violent and militant now. These people are fighting for their families. I don’t know about you, but if I had to fight for my family, it’d be a no-holds-barred cage mat. You could sell tickets and put it on pay-per-view. It’d be nasty.
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 1:37 am
In other words: You don’t get rights by being polite and asking for them. You get rights by taking them.
Surely with your background in history, Spunky, you know that more than most people.
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 1:44 am
nategiggles– As a heterosexual long time member of the church, I feel for you and the many LDS people who have trials similar to yours. I cannot pretend to understand all that you go through, but I hope you realize that not all members whom oppose same sex marriage are hateful or unenlightened. I, like spunky, have struggled with where I stand in this debate. I really do think this ultimately boils down to an issue regarding agency.
If I were told to stop acting like a woman I could not. But when it comes to acting upon sexual urges, I realize that I have a choice. One of the most unbearable trials I have faced in my life was remaining chaste prior to marriage. Some people are more sexual than others, and for me, this challenge was hellish. I was completely thrown when I realized that even though I am in a loving marriage, I am still attracted to people besides my husband. (Sorry good LDS friends–I don’t mean for any heads to explode here–but yes, I have to constantly keep myself in check even after 20 yrs in a great temple marriage.) Discussing sexual attraction issues is pretty taboo in our culture, and I often think if I was just living a little better–doing a little more good–keeping my mind ‘virtuous’ these attractions would go away. But they don’t, and I deal. Just like I dealt prior to marrying. I deal with it by steering clear from potential trouble because it’s my choice, granted by God through agency.
I don’t expect anyone to understand my trials. I suppose many of you would stone me if you could. And I realize this may seem a poor analogy, but I agree with spunky here. And I am so grateful to know that someday, somehow this will all make some sense. Well, that’s what I choose to believe anyway.
Comment by mehzzdup — April 6, 2009 @ 2:13 am
#230- I don’t see the psychological argument you seem to be trying to make in regard to cognitive gender-role decisions, if that is indeed your argument (?).
#231- I disagree that MLK was seen as “the exactly the type of villain SSM protesters are seen as now”. I also don’t see how this is “fighting” “for” a family necessarily. I see it as fighting for the potential to have a family- and I agree with that aspect of it in that there should be better legislation globally to provide homes for needy children, but I don’t equate SSM with providing homes with otherwise parentless children, if that is what you allude (?). If this is the case, it is offense rather than defense- making the comparison of you fighting for your family not make sense to me as I read the statement in regard to your family as you being a defender rather than an oppressor.
#232- The more I research and study, the more I realise how little I know… that being said, few countries have a bill of rights (Australia does not, as you know- subtle anti-mormon stuff going on there), so is it fighting for a right or a privilege? I simply relate to peaceful protest and intellect more than the breakdown of communication resulting in violence- whether it be verbal or physical. I do not personally believe that you get rights by “taking them”—where are the rights to be given? And who do you take them from? And if you do take them, are you robbing someone else of their right by doing so? In short, “taking” doesn’t work for me.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 2:20 am
mehzzdup,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I would like to clarify one thing though.
In my life, the trials aren’t caused by my attractions to people of the same gender; they are caused by people who perceive my attractions to be harmful, deviant, misguided, etc. I have not been an active member of the LDS faith for about 6 years now, nor do I wish to be. I would just like the opportunity to run my own life without other people imposing their values system on my life.
Comment by nategiggles — April 6, 2009 @ 2:25 am
#233- I so get you. I used to wish I could have more than one husband…. and I think that is where I came in with the agency as well. I still have to use agency still as a married woman in regard to sexuality. I think it is a part of mortaility and we all have different degrees of strengths, weaknesses and challenges.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 2:28 am
nategiggles, just to clarify, I do not see you as “harmful, deviant, misguided”- I see you as someone who chooses to indulge their sexual agency. Period.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 2:31 am
Spunky,
I feel the same way about someone who feels I am “sexually indulgent.”
Comment by nategiggles — April 6, 2009 @ 2:45 am
History doesn’t change just because you disagree with it. I know people - good people, not racist people - who felt exactly this way about MLK. The historical record speaks for itself: People were scared of him. People disagreed with his tactics. People thought he was going too far. People thought he was going about it the wrong way. You don’t have to look far to see this mentality about the man, even today. Just scroll back and find the MLK post from earlier this year.
Gay people have families. Gay people have always had families. This is a fight for them to have the same rights for each other and for their children that straight people enjoy just by being straight.
Your “bill of rights” argument is completely moot. You don’t need a Bill of Rights to recognise that certain rights exist. (Australia after all, without having a Bill of RIghts, has just granted gay couples the same rights as married straight couples.) (And I fail to see how a lack of a Bill of Rights means Australia is anti-Mormon!) Your larger question - where do rights come from? - is an interesting philosophical one but this really isn’t the thread for my thoughts on that issue. According to the Declaration of Independence, certain rights that are God-given. According to George W Bush, those same rights are a gift from the government. As to whether marriage is a right or a privilege - in the US that was settled by Loving V VIrginia. I don’t know the case law for Australia - which as you know does not recognise gay marriage but gives the same rights to gay de facto couples as to straight de facto couples at a federal level and increasingly at a state level - but I suspect eventually the only solution that will be seen as lawful under Australian law is to grant gay marriage. As, I suspect, will eventually be the case in the US.
As to whether or not you’re robbing someone of their rights by taking yours - Um, yeah, because that’s exactly what happened with female suffrage, civil rights, indigenous rights, etc. etc. Rights are not an end-sum game: They can be extended to more and more people without diminishing from your own.
Seriously, how will your marriage - YOUR marriage, your precise, exact marriage - be harmed if a gay couple is allowed to marry? Unless you’re worried your husband is actually gay and is only with you because he desperately wants to be married and can’t marry a man, how does gay marriage harm your marriage?
nategiggles, if it makes you feel any better, I’m straight and I’m also sexually indulgent. Love sex. Don’t get much at the moment because with a baby I love sleep more; but give it a few months and I will be very, very sexually indulgent!
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 3:17 am
Quimby, I am not sure how my marriage will be affected with gay marriage, protecting my marriage had nothing to do with my decision. The argument of agency is what drove me to be anti SSM legistlation, period. It is a cognitive religious decision that I made, entirely setting aside personal feeings.
Intellectually, I still don’t see your MLK or family points, I did not find your statements to satisfy an argument in regard to MLK perception or the “defence” of my or your personal family or relationship as a comparison, to me, it is apples and oranges. I refer you to #234.
For the bill of rights thing, there is a push for it in Australia at the moment, and if I have time to write guest post in regard to the subtle relgious sanctions being proposed in the states’ bills of rights leading to the federal bill of rights movement, I will. No time for at least 2 weeks for that, though.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 5:09 am
oops- dang lap top- I was going to add, Quimby that right now, you have made the cognitive decision to value sleep/family/new baby over personal sexual indulgence. For the moment, you are excersing agency in regard to (at least) the frequency of the indulgence of sex. If you can excersize agency in regard to sex for an (I assume) greater calling for this time period, why can’t single people/gay people/married people with wandering eyes do the same? This life has been described as just a moment in the grand scheme of eternity, after all– no matter how long it feels sometimes. Do you have greater agency than gay people? I think not. I think it is the same. I think it is all about agency.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 5:21 am
Spunky #234 in no way refutes anything I said re: MLK or family. They really are very simple arguments: Whether or not a group is “violent” or “militant” or any of those other adjectives you use is largely a matter of historical perspective. MLK was not seen as this great, peaceful leader - it doesn’t matter that you refuse to accept it, it’s an actual, historical fact. (I can not accept that the world is round. It doesn’t mean the world is suddenly not round.) Gay people want the same rights for their partners and for their children that straight people have, and for anyone with an ounce of empathy, that’s understandable. If you take just a minute to put yourself in their shoes, you’ll see that they are fighting for the same rights that us straight people just take for granted. Are you really going to begrudge their desire to be treated equally under the law, just because you believe it’s a “choice”?
(And so what it if it is? Your choice to be Mormon is undeniably a choice - you still want equal protection under the law. Indeed, you go so far as to say Australia is anti-Mormon, for whatever vague, undefined, unsupported reasons; and you object to that, even though your religion is clearly a matter of agency; but you refuse to allow other groups of people the same protection based on a choice they make that you don’t like?)
And to compare a sleep-deprived temporary denial of sexual indulgence to a lifetime of enforced celibacy, without even the hint of intimacy - holding hands, kissing, cuddling, etc. - How can you even make that comparison? Okay, so I’m not having as much sex as I’d like. I still get to cuddle up next to my darling, I still get to kiss him, touch him, hold his hand, be out in public with him as my legal and recognised spouse - You’re not talking apples and oranges, you’re talking apples and lumps of coal.
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 5:37 am
This isn’t universally true, of course. Brazil gained it’s independence without firing a shot.
Comment by Naismith — April 6, 2009 @ 6:04 am
Okay, this seems to be the moral equivalent of “questioning righteousness” from the other side, and just as wrong. Quimby, why didn’t you call them on it?
This is very upsetting to me, because I am a good friend to this couple. I have visited her when a baby was in hospital, brought food, carpooled with them. I greet them in public (likely hugging them if I haven’t seen her in a while), and am not ashamed to acknowledge the relationship.
What more do you want from a friend?
Yes, I think “marriage” is between a man and a woman. That doesn’t affect our friendship in the least.
Comment by Naismith — April 6, 2009 @ 6:15 am
I am going to skip over the majority of the comments and just post this link:
http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=520
Comment by Chino — April 6, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Spunky - Additionally, your “free agency” argument falls flat because you would deny rights to children of gay couples, who do not have any agency re: their parenthood. Why should Lorian’s daughters suffer merely because you don’t agree with Lorian’s choices?
Naismith, the questioning righteousness comments were directed at me, personally - I was defending myself. I get myself in enough hot water that I’m kept plenty busy just defending myself, and I know first-hand that you are well capable of defending yourself.
Eventually, I believe one of two things is bound to happen: Either marriage will fail to hold any legal meaning at all and become merely a religious sacrament, replaced legally by civil unions; or the marriage will grow and expand to include same-sex couples. If the first happens, I sure hope those of us who were married under the old law are grandfathered in, because I hate paperwork. (But heck, we eloped, and the country where we were married has undergone about a million coups since we were married there, so who knows if our marriage is actually legally recognised here anyway? I’d actually take some time to investigate it, but like I said, I hate paperwork.)
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 7:53 am
ECS, I know you get hundreds of comments, but I hope you read this. I am a woman, a gay Iowan and an ex-mormon. I have never felt so affirmed by a member of the church than when I read your post. Beautiful analogy, beautifully articulated, and totally accurate.
Asking a gay person to either
1) partner with someone of the opposite sex and scripture study their way to happiness — which I’ve seen hundreds of times and only works in the short term, and then their lives and families fall apart (most of you don’t know this because the gay members of the church are terrified to come out to you because the vast majority of the church thinks their attraction is reprehensible, so they live in shame and guilt and isolation the rest of their lives) OR
2) live without a mate their entire life (this option also includes the aforementioned guilt, shame, and isolation)
is totally absurd. And I refused to let either one of those things be my reality, so I left.
Also, to those of you who are applying doctrine to the institute of marriage, please understand that we understand that you think tension between the sexes and the procreative component are fundamental to celestial marriage, and we respect that. We don’t want a celestial marriage, we want a civil marriage, and in this country marriage is government institution — it has a religious tradition, but the government is the body that regulates, approves, etc. We want their approval (those of us who are religious already know that we have God’s approval, we don’t need the government to tell us that) because we want the legal and social benefits that come from being able to say marriage (not civil unions). There is social power in saying “this is my wife” versus “this is my partner,” and gay couples who are as committed and devoted to each other as straight married couples deserve that right.
Comment by Gay in Iowa — April 6, 2009 @ 7:56 am
re: 226
That is my experience as well with my homosexual friends and relatives. And because of this, most end up rejecting the Church, becoming bitter adversaries. Seems to indicate this hard line–both active efforts to bring about legal discrimination, and the harsh rhetoric which has been displayed by several in this thread–is counter productive.
re: 231
Funny how with the civil rights for minorities issue a moot one (meaning there is virtual unanimity on the importance of civil rights, if not on how to achieve universal civil rights), and MLK safely dead, how many people forget the fear he inspired among white communities (including, sadly, much of Utah). Same with Gandhi and Great Britain in his time. If people look at things in a historic context, the LGBT movement is hardly the ravening monster, the bloodthirsty juggernaut, that some make it out to be. There are incidents where they go too far (as there was within MLK’s coalition), but for the most part this is a peaceful and reasonable movement.
re: 233
I don’t understand why you think many here would “stone” you, Mehzzdup. I appreciate your candor. We all struggle with our own temptations, and sexual ones are as natural as any.
You say that this is an issue of agency, and you are absolutely right. Individuals and organizations should be allowed the agency to solemnize and pursue whatever relationships they feel morally appropriate, just as we should have the agency to discourage the same if we feel such relationships are inappropriate. The use of law to restrict that agency is wrong.
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 8:39 am
I’ve been staying out of conversations about gay marriage and concentrating on legislation for gay marriage as a sort of compromise for my sanity but I do want to say a few things:
Golden. Those of us who are adoptive mothers, or mothers of special needs children have an inkling of what it’s like to be judged and found wanting by some people. Have had our family misunderstood or maligned, have walked into rooms knowing that if we didn’t marshal every ounce of self respect and resources available to us, we would be institutionally downgraded. I am a believer in Dr King and the power of loving resistance but the reality is, as Quimby so eloquently said, there is more than one house I’ve threatened to burn down if ill treatment of my child continued. Not very Dr King of me.
I don’t know what to say to you Spunky without being offensive. I want to clarify though that it isn’t only your opposition to ssm, it is the smugness in your position that you weren’t asked in the right way. That truly makes my stomach turn. On dark days I think we need to reach out to people like you, they hold the power to keep equality from us, as sickening as it is, cower, beg, cajole, offer respect to the smug, the self righteous, the bigoted and maybe they will throw us a scrap. Brighter days I read Dr King and think you need more love, more light, more respectful resistance, so you see we are not your enemy but neither are we ever going to back down and accept second class citizenship. I wish you would rethink not just your position on ssm but the very idea that you would vote to with hold rights from families because they didn’t ask you the right way.
I’m no fan of the clan but I affirm their right to free assembly, speech and all the rest even though they fail every one of my tests of “appropriate dialogue.” Help us all if our rights were put to that test.
The legislator here in Wyoming who inroduced the DOMA bill that I worked so vociferously against was also our ally on another issue, the home birth bill. It was good practice for me to engage the opposition, build bridges, see her humanity and offer her my own. Also really hard work. But maybe it will have made a difference.
I appreciate all the hard work fMhers do in their community, especially ECS for saying the hard true things. Pioneers always have a rough time!
Comment by crazywomancreek — April 6, 2009 @ 9:33 am
re: 218
Just a quick aside: If you wonder why gays feel so threatened and seek legal protections for their families, think of Brad and the fact that perhaps 1/3 of our society basically feels the way he does.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 6, 2009 @ 9:45 am
#194 wrote: “The American Public sector forced a re-evaluation of LDS doctrine on several occasions, and perhaps that is exactly what Heavenly Father intended by locating the church in American borders.”
Yes, agreed. In my opinion, however, it works the other way around too, and the LDS Church is now called upon by God to try to help persuade the American public from going down the wrong moral path by putting sodomite relationships on an equal footing with procreative hetero relationships.
Comment by Christopher Bigelow — April 6, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Re: 251
Then persuade. Government coercion isn’t persuasion; it is unrighteous dominion.
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 10:07 am
#233 - Mehzzdup,
Your post displays a certain level of presumptuousness, from my perspective.
You state that you had an incredible amount of difficulty just in remaining chaste until your wedding to your husband, and that since that time, you continue to struggle with your attractions to men other than your husband. You claim that this demonstrates how it is that gay people should content themselves with a cup of tea and a good book for the rest of their lives.
Can you not see the hypocrisy here? You found it difficult to remain alone and celibate for just a brief period of a few years. Now, when you become sexually aroused at the sight of an attractive man, or you develop a “crush” on someone you know socially, I expect you take that sexual urge and sublimate it into your marriage with your husband, and use that relationship to express and satisfy your sexuality.
Personally, I’m not nearly as sexually excitable as that. I enjoy it when it happens, but I don’t live for sex, by any means, and rarely become aroused by or attracted to (in any emotionally-disruptive way) anyone besides my wife. But what I could not have lived without is that deep emotional bond with that one single person who is my life-long mate. Sex is only one small part of the show, as far as I’m concerned.
You had difficulty doing without sex for even a brief period of time, and still have difficulty keeping your sexual urges in check, but are able to express them freely within the context of your marriage. Yet you would presume to deny gay people a LIFETIME of sexual expression AND emotional support and intimacy with a caring partner who loves them above all others. And you claim yourself as an example of how it can best be done?
Could you possibly be more presumptuous?
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 10:16 am
#251 - Sodomite? Special. You forgot “Lesbunite,” as good ole Lou Sheldon used to call us. :rollingeyes:
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Derek, he doesn’t want to persuade us. We are SODOMITES. He wants to persuade the US Government to punish us and our children in perpetuity. That’s quite different from persuading US.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Spunky #229, as to this statement:
Do you honestly believe that MLK and Ghandi were not angry? Really? Do you honestly believe that they were not, at times, FURIOUS? Do you truly believe that they did not characterize their campaigns as a “fight” or a “struggle?”
If you believe gays should work for their goals after the manner of Ghandi and MLK, then I would assume you would agree that peaceful protest, boycott, legislative reform and civil disobedience should be the order of the day, correct? Um… last I checked, that’s exactly the methodology employed by the vast majority of those engaged in the struggle for gay rights.
Do some protesters behave badly? Sure. Some of MLD’s and Ghandi’s people did, too. Is that what MLK or Ghandi wanted, or did it diminish the rightness of their purpose? I don’t think so. Do you?
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 10:31 am
MLK. Sorry for the typo.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 10:32 am
And, Quimby, thanks for defending my “theoretical” family!
They don’t feel very theoretical right now. It’s the first day of spring break. 
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 10:34 am
re: 255
Exactly the hypocrisy I’m trying to point out (especially hypocritical in light of the fact that many in the Church still nurture grievances for the historical government intrusion into our own controversial marriage practices). Chris, through his words, shows that he is more concerned with punishing what he believes are immoral sexual practices (and I find it interesting how obsessed so many like him are with sodomy…) than he is with having love for all people (one of the two great commandments), bringing people to Christ, and protecting families and children–which, whether he likes it or not, you have. How could they possibly be served and protected if the complete family rights of their parents are neglected? What would he have you do: divorce your wife and marry a man for whom you have no attraction? Adopt out your kids to a traditional family? It’s all posturing.
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 11:04 am
I haven’t had time to read through all these comments yet, but…
#101 & #105
Sunshine, there are visual representations of homosexuality from prehistoric times. I have a BA in archaeology, and in one of my classes we were shown a slide of a cave painting. Two figures were depicted, both with apparently erect penises, stood stomach to back. As the ‘receiving’ figure seems to be smaller, it has been conjectured that homosexual practices were part of a ceremony to initiate manhood. I can’t remember when it was dated to, or where it was found, but I could probably dig out some references.
As for same-sex relationships, my opinion is that, LDS or not, we have no right to dictate how another person chooses to live their life. That is all.
Comment by Lulu — April 6, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Sappho, one of the great lyric poets of ancient Greece, lived during the 6th Century BCE. She was a lesbian, and wrote poetry about her love for women.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Sunshine, homosexuality has existed throughout history. It exists in much of the animal kingdom, and notably so in the species most closely related to our own. Some animals practice homosexual behavior in the absence of a suitable heterosexual mate (such as in “bachelor herds” in animals where only a single male has breeding rights to a herd of females and the others are left to socialize in male-only groups), but some animals actually form homosexual bonded pairs in a small percentage of the population.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
re: 261
If I recall, Sappho is the reason for the term for woman homosexuals. She lived on the island of Lesbos.
Re: 262
Bonobo chimps are the most interesting example of alternative sexuality, IMO. They are among the few species outside of homo sapiens in which both genders engage in sexuality strictly for pleasure, and in which same-sex sexual acts are very common.
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Correct on both counts.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Additionally, re Bonobo chimps, they are the species which shares the most DNA in common with human beings. They are our closest living relatives.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
I enjoyed Our Inner Ape by Frans De Waal. Bonobo society is fascinating.
One of my first nature observations,was when I was a youngster playing in the canal by the buttercup dairy and watching the cows mount each other. I’m not sure how I’m related to a cow, but I moo a lot.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 6, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
It probably turned you gay, Suzanne. (
)
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Derek, now why did you have to go there? Do you really think that disowning friends and family who are gay is a “legitimate” way to take a stand?
Comment by Stephanie — April 6, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
re: 268
Because some people believe that such extreme measures are effective ways of expressing their moral beliefs and standing for morality. I would disagree with them, as I believe such such methods to be counter-productive and contrary to the message of Christ; but such methods legitimate expressions of freedom of conscience, and defend their right to do so.
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Stephanie, it’s a good deal more legitimate, or at least more honest, than punishing children of gay parents for their parents’ sexual orientation by depriving the children of basic civil rights protections.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
I just think that in offering suggestions, they would be good suggestions, not things that you yourself would not do.
Comment by Stephanie — April 6, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Stephanie, what kind of good suggestions could there be for someone to better practice their prejudice? Prejudice is prejudice. As a gay person, I’d rather have someone be forthright with me about their prejudice and rejection than feed me syrup about how they “love the sinner but hate the sin.”
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
NONE of these would be any more or less offensive to me than any others. I’d rather people be honest than dishonest. But if someone needs suggestions as to how they can go about “acting on their opposition to gay marriage” without trying to deprive children of gay parents of their civil rights, these suggestions are as good as any.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
I don’t take sides on this issue and pretty much stand in the middle seeing both points. I do have a question though. How is 2 women being together or 2 men being together worse than a man being with several women (polygamy)? The church once encouraged polygamy and I don’t see being gay as a bad thing when compared to polygamy.
Comment by JenK. — April 6, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Christopher, not one single thing you said explains why my spouse and my children and I should not have equal access to a civil institution which provides basic protections and civil rights to families.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Remember, please, that Proposition 8 had NOTHING to do with whether or not gay couples could be sealed in the Temple. It exclusively pertained to whether or not gay couples should have equal access to the CIVIL rights and protections provided to couples and their children by way of CIVIL marriage.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
CB - Your last comment was put into moderation because of your final couple of lines, about “really worrying” about Mormons who feel differently to you on this issue. When myself and several others have said over and over again that we’ve recieved personal revelation on this issue your “concern” is just more judgement on our righteousness. You have been warned repeatedly about this. If you want to play, play nice. If you can’t play nice, I’ll ban you. Because, see, I’m just the sort of uppity homo-lover who can do that. Particularly when you continously, despite many warnings and across the space of many, many days, continue to question the personal righteousness of people who disagree with you.
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
“Mormonanswerman” - Your comments demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the topic you are discussing.
1. Numerous studies have been done which show that children raised by two loving, nurturing same-gendered parents are equally as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as children raised by two nurturing, loving opposite-gendered parents. There is absolutely no data which supports your claim that children need parents with opposing genitalia, or that genitalia have anything to do with what constitutes “good parenting.”
2. I was raised for my first 5 years by my mother and my grandmother, working functionally as a parenting team, since my father left my mother for another woman when she was pregnant with me. Unfortunately, my mother bought into the idea that “children NEED a father,” as though marrying some guy and bringing him into the home will magically transform the family into a fairytale dream of bliss.
My stepfather was not the worst man on earth. He didn’t beat us. But he neglected us and emotionally abused us. We were far better off being raised by two women than we would have been with EITHER my biological father or the stepfather.
Children have fanciful ideas and tend to want everything their peers have, regardless of whether or not it is good for them. But the fact is that every family is different. While the majority have a male-female parenting team, many do not, and what is most important for kids is that there are two loving, caring, nurturing involved adults parenting them.
Research which is used to show that having a father in the home is “crucial,” is actually based upon studies of families in which children have been abandoned by one parent through divorce or for other reasons, and a single parent, usually mom, is struggling to support and raise her children on her own. These kids are generally financially disadvantaged, have less parental contact time because their parent must work long hours to support them, and have abandonment issues and trauma from going through the divorce.
It’s really important that you do your homework before getting deeply involved in counseling others about what type of family is “best” for the children.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Incidentally, my children have yet to request a “father,” or to be dissatisfied with having two moms.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Huh?
Since when does anyone fall in love with their seat belt or shoulder restraint?
And, incidentally, what IS an “ideal marriage?” I don’t know any “ideal people,” so I cannot imagine what would constitute an “ideal marriage.” As far as I am concerned, my wife is my “ideal marital partner.” While no one’s perfect, I cannot imagine anyone better suited to me than she is. And I’m pretty sure she feels the same way about me. Since when is the government the best arbiter of who would be the “ideal person” to marry someone else? Would you let the government pick the “ideal spouse” for you? Yikes. People don’t even seem to want to trust the government to manage their healthcare. Why would they let the government decide who they should marry?
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
And Quimby, for the record, I happen to love “uppity homo-lovers” such as yourself. :heart:
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
“That has always been the idea of two selfish people who care not…”
Wow, that’s really offensive.
Anybody besides me ever ask themselves why they continue reading the hundreds of comments on a post that goes down this road? Guess it’s better than doing work.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 6, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Mike,
You got that right.
I consider discussing the topic of gay marriage on message boards a bit of an avocation, though. I have a number of friends whose hearts and minds have been changed over the years through conversations like this. Sometimes just getting to know a gay person and talking to them for a bit can make a huge difference in how people understand the issue of gay civil rights.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
re: 248
Some people are unable to stop rubbernecking car crashes…others of us can’t help but continue to read with horrified amazement the comments in these threads.
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Correction:
re 283, not re 248
(we also hope we might somehow make a difference, I suppose)
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Nothing amazes me. Sometimes things sadden me, often they exhaust me, sometimes they even nauseate me, and occasionally they actually hurt me. But rarely do I find myself amazed. Not anymore.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Ha! Derek. I was wondering if you were missing a series of posts that I could see.
Yeah, I do hope that sometimes I can make a difference. My friend, Kendra, who is straight, and a gifted scientist, and a twin parent like myself, tells me that I have and that I continue to. She is a staunch supporter, and helps to give me the will to go on in these types of discussions, especially when she sees how they wear on me at times.
What I have seen on this board pales in comparison to discussions I’ve had on parenting message boards. Some of those bruised and exhausted me to my very core. The comments here are so mild by comparison.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
#246- “your “free agency” argument falls flat because you would deny rights to children of gay couples, who do not have any agency re: their parenthood”
Huh? Gay people don’t have agency in regard to parenthood? You lost me on that one. How am I denying “rights” to gay children by encouraging them to use their agency in regard to sexuality? Huh?
#249- I have infertility issues, but in no way do I feel my situation is in any way kindred to the gay movement. I can have a family if I choose- sure it is harder, and there are more laws and regulations and tests I need to pass, but I have my agency to pursue that, same as a gay person. Different state and countries have different laws in regard to surrogacy and adoption- some do not allow same-sex parents, some don’t allow single parents, some don’t allow people who have ever had a divorce, some are age-specific. Most in western society are open adoptions so the birth mother calls the shots with whom she chooses to raise her biological child. I can use my agency just as well as any gay couple to pursue parentage within the bounds of existing laws, no matter how complicated it is if I choose to do so. I don’t follow the correlation between adoptive and special needs children and SSM.
#256- I think MLK and Ghandi used a great deal of self control in achieving their goals and purposefully refrained from violence. I don’t think that because some people empathising with them used violence made them happy- I think it frustrated their cause.
But all of this is seriously off point. The point of my comment was the absolute recognition that as a woman, I cannot choose my gender in this life, but I can choose my sexual partner, just like people can choose to live celibate lives or sexual lives. Gayness isn’t forordained any more than marriage. But gender is forordained. Recognising this through ECS’s post is what made me decide to not question the church anymore in regard to the SSM policy. None of the pro-SSM posts have come close to dissuading me from this point in an even remotely spiritual argument.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Spunky, I think the point regarding agency and parenting is that many gay people DO have children, either adopted or biological. When you deprive gay couples of the right to marry, you deprive those CHILDREN of basic civil rights protections. They are not, in your words, “gay children.” They are children born to or adopted by gay parents, who deserve the same rights as other children have through their parents being allowed to access the rights and protections of civil marriage.
Arguments about agency really mean very little when it comes to whether or not the children of gay parents deserve the same rights as children of straight parents.
And yes, I believe that Ghandi and MLK used a great deal of self-restraint, also, and that they were no more responsible for the occasional violent acts of their followers than I and other gay people are responsible for the occasional bad actions of a few gay people who step outside the non-violent paradigm we attempt to establish and maintain.
As to gender vs. sexual orientation, BOTH are innate characteristics (though BOTH have shades and degrees, as any intersexed person will attest). And, yes, we have choices in how we conduct our lives as women, as lesbians, as straight persons, etc. Those choices involve living our lives responsibly and lovingly. I am no more obligated to live a life of perpetual celibacy and isolation than are you. I am responsible to make a commitment to my spouse and to keep that commitment in honesty, love and faithfulness. God honors and blesses my commitment the same as God honors and blesses your commitment to your spouse.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
I think we are talking about two very different things. I’m not talking about children who are gay; I’m talking about children whose parents happen to be gay. These children should have the same rights as straight children when it comes to custody, end-of-life decisions, hospital visitations, next-of-kin notifications, etc. As a potentially adoptive mother, surely you would baulk at the idea that your future child could not be legally recognised as your child and could not have any of the same legal rights with regards to their relationship with you that my biological children can have automatically with regards to their relationship with me?
You say it’s a matter of free agency; but it’s not a matter of free agency for the children. They have gay parents. Period. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights as children who are being raised by both biological parents, or as children who are adopted by a straight married couple?
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
First of all, I’m not trying to convince you - I’m just trying to get you to think deeper about your stance. Secondly, as far as I’m concerned, civil law and religious law are two different things altogether. I don’t want a civil law that is based on religoius law because, guess what? Mormons would lose that one. We’re outnumbered. And I sure as heck don’t want some other religion dictating what I can and cannot do. So why would I want my religion dictating what others can and cannot do?
I made a choice to be Mormon - It was a matter of my own free agency. Lorian has not made that same choice. Why should Lorian have to abide by my covenants, when she has not made them?
If I want civil law to respect and uphold my right to practice my religion as I choose (again, CHOOSE - religion is purely a matter of agency), why shouldn’t I want that same civil law to respect and uphold someone else’s right to practice their sexuality as they choose?
It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with recognising that we live in a plurality, with various understandings of what is right and what is wrong, and that dictating behavior through civil law based on one interpretation of one religious text is wrong.
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
To give a more explicit example of the problems children of gay parents may face- health insurance. Children of gay parents are often only legally one of the parent’s children. From my, albeit, limited experience, this seems more likely to be the non working parent (both couples I am thinking of are lesbian couples who used artificial insemination and so it kinda made more sense for the non-breadwinners to do the pregnancy thing). These children don’t qualify for insurance from the breadwinner’s job since the breadwinner has no legal ties to the children. The breadwinner also does not get to list the child as a dependent on tax forms, which is a pretty significant deduction.
Comment by Tami — April 6, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
re: 291
Exactly right, Quimby. This has absolutely nothing to do with Church doctrine. Despite my considerable doubts, I’m willing to trust the Church on the doctrinal issue of homosexuality. I will not be lobbying the Church to solemnize homosexual marriage in the temple, nor protest the excommunication of members who enter into same-sex sexual relationships.
But I cannot support the Church on the policy issue of trying to promote discriminatory secular law to coerce people into line with our beliefs. I demand that all people be allowed to make that decision for themselves, and for the law to give them equal respect in regard to that decision.
Comment by Derek — April 6, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Bingo, Tami. Our kids did not have an immediate legal relationship to my wife, and my wife is the primary wage-earner in our household (we run our own business, but she does most of the business work day-to-day). We were fortunate that we had one employee at the time and could, by listing me as part of the business, buy a group insurance plan. We’ve been able to keep that plan going even though we no longer have an employee, and the children are my dependents on the plan.
CA now allows gay couples to declare a legal relationship to children born within the union, if they are registered domestic partners, but when my girls were born, and I nearly died in the process, it was especially frightening for my spouse because she would not have been allowed to take custody of the babies. She could not claim the girls as a tax exemption when she filed federal income taxes, even though she is the primary wage earner. Now that she has been able to legally adopt the children, she can claim them, though we cannot file our taxes jointly, since the US Government does not acknowledge our marriage even though it we are legally married here in CA.
So many things which straight couples take for granted and barely think about, we have had to put together piecemeal, and many others are simply not available to us. If my spouse died, our kids would be able to collect social security payments as her dependents, now that she has (had to) formally adopt them, but up until that point, they would have been S.O.L. I cannot collect social security if she dies, even though I will be left alone to support our dependent children, and that’s precisely why spouses are supposed to be able to collect their spouse’s social security should their spouse die.
I know a lesbian couple with twin boys a little younger than our girls who spent over $10,000 with attorneys trying to assemble just a handful of the rights and protections which would have been theirs automatically had they been able to legal marry in the eyes of the state and federal government. This not only punishes them, it punishes their children, who might have had that money to help fund their college educations some day.
There are so many ways in which gay-parented families are punished for the parents’ sexual orientation which most straight people really never even think about.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Derek #293. Exactly so. Most gay people are not particularly concerned about whether or not a given church will marry them, or excommunicate them (individual members of those churches have their own issues with their church, and can take those up individually). But where the rubber hits the road is when churches interfere in civil legislation to deny gay couples civil rights.
Most gay people LEAVE churches which make clear they are not welcome. If they choose to stay, then they are choosing to work within that church’s system of beliefs. That’s entirely their business and their choice. I will never lobby any church to change its policies to accommodate me. I just simply ask that they not reach outside their own membership to persecute me, when I am not even a member of their organization.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Were Mormonanswerman’s comments deleted? Or am I just not seeing them?
Comment by Stephanie — April 6, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
I put them into moderation, Stephanie. What can I say, I’m feeling power-hungry.
Actually it was because Mike said he found the comments offensive, and Mike isn’t one to take offense easily, so I erred on the side of caution. Basically she/he was just saying that same-sex parents are selfish and that SSM were by their very nature dysfunctional.
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
#289- I still think people choose who they have sex with, if they choose to have sex. Some people are attracted to RMs, some people are attracted to blondes, we all have different preferences- but that is it- preferance, not intellectual inability to choose for oneself. There is always agency there.
#290- “These children should have the same rights as straight children when it comes to custody, end-of-life decisions, hospital visitations, next-of-kin notifications, etc.”
You lost me here- but maybe my head is too mixed in having studied family law for personal reasons. There are a number of families I know where the mother or father and a grandparent or aunt or uncle (biological or not) are the primary care givers. It was simply an act of petitioning the court to legally recognise the PCGs, regardless of gender. I can’t see how this is different to SSM couples who choose to have children. You petition the court. Or you don’t. Its your choice. Its about the “rights” of the parent to be recognised largely for financial reason, I don’t see where end-of-life decisions apply here.
#290- “As a potentially adoptive mother, surely you would baulk at the idea that your future child could not be legally recognised as your child and could not have any of the same legal rights with regards to their relationship with you that my biological children can have automatically with regards to their relationship with me?”
I am well aware of the legal application adoptive parents make in a variety of countries to have non-biological children recognised as their “own”. By birth, the Primary Care Givers are assumed to be the biological mother (and father, if noted on the birth certificate). In adoption, you petition the court to recognise the adoptive, non-biological or semi-biological parent to be recognised as part of the PCG couple. This is what you do, gay or straight as a non-biological parent. The children of a gay couple do have the same rights as the non-biological child of an adoptive couple. If SSM was recognised, it would make no difference in this application, it just means you tick a different box on the court application.
Comment by spunky — April 6, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Spunky, you are just wrong. Adoption of children by a same-sex couple or by a same-sex partner of a parent of a biological child is simply illegal in many parts of the world.
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
And even in those parts of the world where same-sex adoption is legal - Well, look at what Lorian said. She almost died giving birth. Her partner would not have had the right to raise those children. If I died giving birth, my partner would automatically have the right to raise those children. Lorian’s parents, grandparents, aunt, cousin, could’ve swept in and taken those children off of Lorian’s partner, just out of spite. Why should Lorian’s partner be put through the additional strain of a court battle when she’s just lost the love of her life, just because of a legal technicality?
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Yes. It’s illegal in two states of the USA, and severely restricted in a number of others. If a gay couple lives in Florida, the non-biological parent can NEVER form a legally-recognized relationship to his/her children, nor can a gay person adopt a child at all, either as the primary or a secondary adopter.
You may have studied up on family law as it relates to your particular situation in your particular state, but there is a great deal more to family law that you seem to realize, and it varies widely from state to state. That is precisely WHY gay people need a legal relationship to one another and to one another’s children which is recognized and upheld by the Federal Government. Leaving us at the mercy of whatever state we may find ourselves in because of travel or job change leaves our children at risk and vulnerable to the whims of the local police, courts, hospitals and family services organizations.
When we travel with our children, we have to think carefully about where we are traveling to, and what would be the ramifications if something were to happen to any of us there. The protections and rights we have assembled here in CA are not necessarily transferable with us to the other states, since our relationships as a family may very well not be recognized there.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
#298- I am pretty sure that in some states homosexual partners are not capable of petitioning the courts to be PCGs. In the 2008 elections, didn’t another state change their law to specifically forbid that?
Comment by Tami — April 6, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
If Prop 8 had failed and same sex unions in CA were legally recognized as marriage, wouldn’t this still be the same because of the federal DOMA law? Would you only be protected in the few states that recognize same sex marriage?
Comment by Stephanie — April 6, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
So are there any other topics besides same sex marriage that generate 300+ comments?
Comment by Stephanie — April 6, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
Stephanie - I think sex, p*rn, and breastfeeding posts do too. Wanna take a shot at combining the four for a guest post topic?
Comment by Quimby — April 6, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Uh, no, but thanks anyways.
Comment by Stephanie — April 6, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
re: 297
Wow, I suddenly feel so powerful.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — April 6, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Arkansas just passed a law banning gay adoptions. They couched it as banning “adoptions by unmarried persons,” but the point was really to keep gays from adopting.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Stephanie, yes, that’s correct that even if Prop 8 had been defeated, while we would have had ongoing rights to marry legally in CA, our marriages still would not have been federally recognized or transferrable to other states which do not have gay marriage.
The difference, though, would be that we would have a stronger, firmer path towards eventual federal recognition of our marriages. Federal DOMA is quite clearly unconstitutional under the US Constitution as it currently stands (hence the agitation among foes of gay civil rights to push for an amendment to the US Constution banning gay marriage), and will almost certainly fall to a Supreme Court challenge at some point. The more gay people there are who are legally married in a number of different states, and whose rights as married couples are denied them in other states of the union, the more compelling will be the grounds for recognizing that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the 1st Amendment is violated by this action.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
Mike, you ARE powerful. I can feel the vibrations and emanations clear over here in Riverside County. I was wondering where they were coming from, and now I realize it was you the whole time…
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Gay marriage, sex, p*rn and breastfeeding? All in one thread? I can see the smoke rising from the server right now.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
Isn’t Obama planning to overturn the federal DOMA?
Comment by Stephanie — April 6, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Not clear at this moment. I suspect he will at some point, if he can. Right now he’s aiming at “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” which should go away, too, but won’t help my family or families like mine, particularly.
I’m guessing that the soonest he would go after DOMA would be his second term, if he is reelected. He has too many other things to spend his political capital on right now. He doesn’t want to threaten his future electability.
Comment by Lorian — April 6, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
FWIW,
I have a gay coworker and very good friend getting baptized this week- loves what he hears, even the traditional man-woman family bit. Hurrah for Israel!
Comment by nasamomdele — April 7, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Vermont just became the 4th state to end marriage discrimination on the basis of gender, and the first to enact marriage equality through the legislature.
The Vermont House voted 100-49 in favor of the measure, and the Vermont Senate voted 23-5 in favor, achieving the 2/3rds majority necessary to override an earlier veto by the governor.
Comment by John Hamer — April 7, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Congratulations Vermont.
Also the Washington DC city council voted unanimously to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
It’s been a great week.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — April 7, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Just heard about this on CNN. Right. On.
Comment by Lorian — April 7, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Yay, Vermont! I guess the opponents of same-sex marriage can’t complain about this decision. The people of Vermont have spoken in favor of equality.
How about some Ben and Jerry’s to celebrate?!
Comment by ECS — April 7, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Comment by Lorian — April 7, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
In the pamphlet god Loveth His children out out b the First Presidency, it states that same sex attraction did not exist before this life and it will not exist after this life. How strange that church members are encouraging people to love a lifestyle that, in the end, goes nowhere.
Comment by dara — April 7, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
God Loveth His Children put out by the first Presidency
Comment by dara — April 7, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
@320: Do non-Temple marriages exist after this life? Kinda makes you wonder why non-Mormons would even bother getting married, don’t it?
Comment by Chino — April 7, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Chino–I would think that’s partially why we do sealings in the Temple.
Comment by amy — April 7, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
@323: Sure, but without ‘em, all those non-Temple-married straight couples would be on a road to nowhere, too, right?
Comment by Chino — April 7, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
#320 - Dara,
Wait! Where were church members “encouraging” anyone to “love a lifestyle” that “goes nowhere”?
First, I don’t see church members encouraging anyone to do anything except allow that families are all entitled to the same civil rights, regardless of the gender of the parents. Additionally, being gay is not a “lifestyle.” It is a sexual orientation. And finally, “goes nowhere” is a matter of opinion. It is your believe that there is no eternal purpose in the love of two people for one another if they share the same gender. I disagree. And ultimately, you are responsible for the outcome of your own life and relationships, not mine.
Comment by Lorian — April 7, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
Thankfully, “God Loveth His Children” was published all the way back in 2007, so it’s not a problem now to point out just how much bad advice was packed into that slim pamphlet.
Comment by Chino — April 8, 2009 @ 1:00 am
[I haven’t read “God Loveth His Children” and am not familiar with it] but church publications from 2007 are irrelevant? Just how “current” do church publications need to be to be considered relevant?
Comment by Stephanie — April 8, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Perhaps their “currency” is not so much the issue as their relevancy. Your first presidency can teach whatever doctrine it wishes about whether same-gender attraction existed before this world or will continue after this life. Whatever you or I believe on that score is completely irrelevant with respect to whether families whose parents share the same gender deserve to have the same civil rights in this country as other families.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 11:44 am
The unintended consequences:
Polygamy follows gay marriage…
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Polygamy is a separate issue from gay marriage.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Incidentally, I hear that suggestion a lot, that the reason why gay marriage should not be legalized is because then polygamy would be legalized.
I’d be very curious to know which of the several states and countries which have legalized gay marriage, have also legalized polygamy? I can’t think of any, personally, but maybe I’ve missed some?
And, as long as we’re going down that path, HOW, exactly, does legalizing gay marriage lead to legal polygamy. It seems to me that the two are really quite different. Other than the mixed-gender aspect, gay marriage shares far more characteristics with straight marriage than does polygamous marriage. For instance, family law in most countries, and certainly in this one, is designed specifically for a family structure with two parents plus children. Adding additional parents to the mix would require massive changes to divorce laws, inheritance laws, child custody laws, parental-responsibility laws, joint-tenancy laws, community property laws, etc. Whereas legalization of gay marriage requires little more than making forms gender neutral.
Additionally, there is an existing Supreme Court decision making polygamy illegal. Legalization of polygamy would require either that the US Supreme Court review and overturn its prior decision (something which happens only rarely) or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically granting the right to polygamous marriage.
So, as a practical matter, regardless of whether or not polygamous marriage SHOULD be legal, a path to such legalization is distinctly different and a great deal more complicated than a path to gay marriage.
Again, the two really have very little to do with one another, other than as a scare tactic and an illogical argument.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Any relationship between consenting adults should be legal and recognized as much as any other. Polygamy can be a great deal more thorny because in practice some parties are often coerced (many girls in the FLDS community were forced by their community to marry a particular patriarch), but those which are consenting should be allowed. As some within our faith subscribe to the idea that polygamy will again be restored to this dispensation before the
Second Coming, I would think there would be more sympathy to this notion.
(and while I have not infrequently heard the ludicrous suggestion that legitimation of homosexual marriage will lead to beastial marriages, I would point out that a non-sapient animal cannot be considered a consenting partner).
Comment by Derek — April 8, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Well, I know the horses say “neigh”…
Comment by Kimberly — April 8, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Please, no. If there was ever a reason I would consider apostasy, that would probably be it.
Comment by Stephanie — April 8, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Agreed. I have no specific issue with polygamous marriage in principle. I think there is far more Biblical precedent for it than not, so I find it rather amusing when some conservative Christians argue against gay marriage by presenting polygamous marriage as the hideous spectre standing behind it, waiting to attack and destroy humanity as we know it.
My issues with polygamy are primarily related to the practicalities involved in large-scale practice, specifically the tendency in polygamous communities to compel the participation of underage girls (or even young women who, though of age, have been intentionally and carefully kept naive and indoctrinated to believe that they have no choice in the matter), and the surplus of young men who are not able (or considered “worthy”) to find a wife. Those are issues which communities which practice polygamy on a large scale simply cannot seem to overcome (I don’t know how you would, really, particularly the issue of unmarried young men).
But, yes, as a principle, I cannot find anything morally objectionable about polygamous marriage. I think, to the contrary, that, assuming all participants are of age, educated and willing, that it does offer some advantages in areas of child-rearing, social support and sexual compatibility which make it a very adaptive model for human beings. I suspect it was the family model most common among our distant, pre-historic ancestors. This would also go a long way to explain our species’ strong predisposition to homosexuality and bisexuality, since young males unable to find female mates would tend to form “bachelor herds” for protection and support in finding food and holding territory, and such bachelor herds in mammalian species tend to quite commonly involve the use of homosexual mounting for the purpose of bonding, social dominance, or both.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
My “agreed” above was in response to Derek’s post #332.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
I’d have to get over my earthly revulsion for polygamy to accept it. I think the tendency of its practitioners to wedding child brides is the worst part of the modern practice…along with the FDLS girls having no say in their choice of partner. That just makes it rape, in my book.
But anyway, I just don’t see how it relates to gay marriage- because gays are only asking to have one partner at a time, just as heterosexuals do. It seems it would have to be a separate issue to have more than one spouse simultaneously- even if it was consensual, I think the legal entanglements could get a little complex. (What if one wife wants life support stopped and the other wife doesn’t…)
Comment by Kimberly — April 8, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Exactly so, Kimberly. It’s not inherently morally objectionable, but neither is it by any means the same issue as gay marriage, at all. Bringing them up as a “slippery slope” is just silly.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
I tried to include a link (I don’t know what happened). Here they are:
A Canadian op-ed arguing in favor of polygamy with similar assertions as SSM supporters.
Another example.
Polygymous men getting welfare rights in Cnada.
Canadian immigration law loophole allows polygymous families, which can only lead to allowing polygamy on the grounds of equality.
The slippery slope is real, and it sems impossible to pick and choose what forms of marriage are ‘legal’ without stripping legal marriage of any requirements. Those SSM supporters who rejoice in the pasage of SSM marriage allowances, but detest polygamy and express disinterest in the Church should polygamy be practiced, will find themselves on the other side of the issue now, with the SSM precedent going against them.
There is no reason to think it would be otherwise. Should a traditional definition of marriage (man and woman-never a definition of marriage as gender roles, unlike what is mentioned in this emotivist post) fall to SSM, there are no plausible barriers to polyandry, unless some ‘new’ traditional marriage defitnition forms, including SSM, which would be laughable hypocrisy.
I think that careful consideration of the issue would point to some significant conclusions, for better or worse:
1) An open definition of marriage
2) A de-stigmatization of homosexuality, which would lead to more homosexuality.
3) Stigmatization of religions or moral institutions that speak of homosexuality, SSM, or other forms of relationships/marriages. Such institutions would be ‘bigoted’ or ‘racist’.
4) Following #4, there would very possibly be a legal basis for discrimination complaints, and therefore an infringement on religious liberty (This is more well documented than you think).
Evident already in this post is a stigmatization of ‘traditional marriage’ as a discriminatory concept, both to women and to gays. This can hardly be supported with facts, but stigma does not rely on facts.
This is a bigger issue than most of us realize, and the unintended consequences are many and drastic.
At least Vermont went through a democratic legislative process (although I heard on NPR today that public opinion is 65% against SSM in Vermont), where Iowa went the controversial and ill-suited judicial route.
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Actually, I’ll bet you’ll find that the opponents of SSM will find that they can complain about this decision.
In all seriousness, though, I continue to believe the proper way to pass SSM is through either direct vote or the legislature, not the courts, and I fully support Vermont’s legislature’s right to pass this law.
As far as the threadjack of polygamy goes, I think it SHOULD be legal. I agree that the marriage of 14-year-olds to yucky (or even non-yucky) 60-year-olds, especially when the girls have no say, is awfully close to rape. But part of the reason that these 14-year-olds are brainwashed into these faux marriages is that polygamy is illegal, and thus polygamy groups have a siege mentality and don’t let the outside world in. If polygamy were legal, we could go in and monitor the consent of the girls, and thus solve the real problem of modern-day polygamy. But this sounds like a good thread all on its own. Anyone?
Comment by Molly — April 8, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
It does sound like an interesting thread. Scary, perhaps, but interesting…
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Molly,
What precedent do we act on that says 14-year old girls are unable to make a rational decision to be married?
If it is rape, its rape. If its not…
Re: Vermont legislation- included were a number of protections to religious liberty. Why would they see fit to include those if there was no threat?
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
To comfort those who FEAR that there is some kind of threat. Clearly there is no threat to religious liberty because no church in this country has ever been forced to marry a couple which did not meet their internal religious criteria, including interracial couples. Churches may deny sacramental marriage to whomever they choose, with impunity. And yet, there are still those who throw this out as a reason for not allowing gay couples to share in equal civil rights — the strawman argument that somehow churches will be forced to violate their own religious principles and marry couples who do not qualify by their definitions.
So legislatures and courts are being very careful to emphasize that legislation/judicial decisions allowing gays to marry do not in any way infringe upon rights of religious bodies to govern their own internal rules for the provisions of sacraments and blessings.
Now, don’t turn around and use THAT as a strawman of a strawman to beat gay couples over the head with, please!
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Just how “current” do church publications need to be to be considered relevant?
Very.
If I’d told you back in 2007 that the governor of Utah would be coming out publicly in favor of civil unions in a couple of years, would you have believed me?
Or going back one year earlier, maybe you can tell me if this is still operative:
Marlin Jensen, LDS church historian and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy in a March 7, 2006 interview:
Q: What are some of the doctrines a person might be excommunicated for opposing?
A: If you advocated, for instance, that gay people should be allowed to marry, and you were openly vocal about that, and in the process malign the leadership in the church for not adopting that position, that’s something that would be severe enough, I think, to warrant disciplinary action.
Well, it’s 2009, and I think not.
The Overton window has been more like a friggin’ sliding door lately when it comes to this issue. All sorts of fairly recent pronouncements being rendered inoperative near daily. That’s why folks like Mr. Bigelow sound like their heads are about to explode.
Comment by Chino — April 8, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Just a little factual note….. polygamy is actually the most common marriage system in the world STILL. I actually know some polygamists from other countries who are living here…… with some difficulty, of course.
But yeah, polygamy is more common than monogamy as a form of marriage.
But I’d still never ever ever, in time or eternity, be able to allow another person into the relationship I have with my hubby.
Comment by Natalie K. — April 8, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Oh, and obviously…..
YAY VERMONT!!!
Comment by Natalie K. — April 8, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Yeah, let’s see if you still feel that way in a million years!
Comment by Quimby — April 8, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Lorian,
What straw man? The Vermont legislature and the gay rights group explicitly included language to protect religious feedom in the law they passed. It’s not a bunch of passing statements, it’s in the law. They obviously saw the need to spell out the protections.
Two out of four of the issues (clergy may disccriminate who the perform marriages for, Churches may discriminate who uses their facilities, Churches may discriminate who they employ, Churches may discriminate who the house) are new to State law- two are already addressed in other statutes.
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
The point is that all of those protections already exist. Clergy have full right to refuse any sacrament or any blessing to any person at any time. The government cannot compel them to marry someone they do not choose to marry. Churches have full right to refuse the use of their facilities to anyone for any reason at any time (unless they are taking taxpayer money for the public use of those facilities, as was the church in New Jersey). Churches have always had the right to practice employment discrimination (except in programs for which they receive public funding, such as a preschool receiving taxpayer funding — and even there, it is a grey area). Churches have full authority to decide whom they house (again, unless they are receiving taxpayer funding for a program such as a homeless shelter).
These protections are firmly in place. To bring them up as proof that gay marriage constitutes a “threat” to “religious freedom” is a strawman.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
nasamomdele, churches have always had the right to marry or not marry whoever they like.
Just try walking into a Catholic church and demanding to be married. You’ll be laughed (or, more likely, kindly escorted) out of the building.
Comment by Quimby — April 8, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
Kimberly,
Yes, the Vermont legislature spells out that marriage is legal between two consenting adults.
The question is why? I think it is best addressed by the assessments of those that have no problem with the idea of polygamy. There is no good reason why. As long as we strip marriage of any gender, it can just as easily be stripped of any number, or age for that matter. Adopted children must offer consent to be adopted into families, how is it possible to restrict them from offering consent to marriage?
Polygamy relates directly to SSM. Both involve (or would involve) stripping a ‘traditional’ definition of marriage down to a social definition of marriage that has no precedent- no basis for existence other than that somebody wants it and feel they have a right to it. So a new definition is created out of thin air based on ‘new’ preferences.
Marriage might as well have no definition. The only remaining hurdle to clear would be “consent”.
So the cheering over passage of SSM laws, and the simultaneous disgust and/or rejection of polygamy (whether on a philosophical or personal basis) is hypocritical, but mostly humorous.
The only things to wait and see results of are the de-stigmatization of homosexuality. One analogous example: Divorce used to be stigma, and then divorce laws were made to be more palpable and now we have a 50% divorce rate.
If anything, latest revelations regarding unintended consequences have made Church leadership appear prophetic (slippery slopes and religious freedoms).
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Adopted children do NOT have to consent to adoption (at least not below a given age of consent) else there would never be infant adoptions. And in any case, consent to be adopted is far different from consent to sexual intercourse, which has it’s own distinct age of consent. Children cannot consent to sexual intercourse, and therefore cannot consent to marriage.
As to your claim that polygamy and same-gender marriage present the same challenges to family law, this is entirely incorrect, as I have already demonstrated in my post earlier in this thread. I’ll get the post number for you.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Here, quoting from my post # 331, above:
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Quimby,
I fail to see your point re: SSM.
Its not an issue as to whether it ever has happened, it is all-important to note that it never will, by law.
Hypotheticals are thrown out. It is an explicit protection of religious freedom.
This comes where SSM proponents have repeatedly argued that no such things are necessary. Interesting, no?
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Interesting? No.
I see it as a result to the panic and a way of calming unnecessary panic. Nothing more.
Comment by Quimby — April 8, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
nasamomdele, But the point which you are missing is that the protection has ALWAYS BEEN explicit. There are explicit principles, both legislated and adjudicated, which protect churches throughout this country, not just in Vermont, from being compelled to do ANYTHING they claim violates the principles of their religion, including marrying a couple of whom they do not approve.
If churches can refuse (and HAVE refused) to marry couples because one of the prospective spouses is black and the other white, and gotten away with it, why on God’s green earth would you imagine that any church will be forced to marry a gay couple?
The only exceptions to the rule of churches being compelled to comply with laws which violate their religious teachings (hiring, public accommodation, etc., of people who do not meet a religious test of some sort) are churches or church agencies which accept public funding for some aspect of their work. In such cases, the law is quite clear that they are compelled to abide by applicable non-discrimination laws, only in specific relation to the area of business in which the public funding is accepted.
So, for instance, if a church operates a daycare/preschool facility and takes taxpayer funding from a program such as Head Start, they would be compelled to accept students whose parents were gay. If they run a daycare or preschool which is funded entirely through the church’s own auspices, including income from the operation of the preschool, itself, they may refuse services to whomever they choose, by whatever criteria they select.
A case demonstrating this fact occurred a few years ago very near where I live, here in Southern California, where statewide anti-discrimination ordinances are firmly in place. A Lutheran Church operates a High School which is funded entirely through church monies and student tuitions. No public funds are used in the operation of the school.
Two girls were rumored to be involved in a lesbian relationship (this was not even proven — just rumored). They were expelled. They appealed through the courts based upon the fact that the church was operating a business and should have to comply with anti-discrimination statutes requiring equal access for glbt persons to public accommodations (businesses serving the general public). They lost, and continue to lose on further appeal. The church is fully protected because they are operating this business under the auspices of the church and are not accepting public funding for its operation other than the tuitions from the students, themselves.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
So, damned if we do and damned if we don’t, eh? Either way, it’s some kind of dastardly homosexual plot to overthrow religious freedom? Please.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Lorian,
Do you think that bringing something such as prop. 8 before the Supreme Court would allow such a review of federal definition of marriage?
I provided examples of how such movement towards a review of family law is underway in Canada- immigration laws are being examined and people are actually supporting the idea of polygamy being included in the legal definition of marriage.
Surely examination of a widespread marriage practice would not be passed over simply because it would be inconvenient to therefore re-write family law. That would be a black eye for the idea of justice.
It seems you ignore the most important part of any marriage legislation and the primary reason the Church was involved- the efinition of marriage. Every piece of SSM legislation has an explicit statement of the definition of marriage. Every definition you will find includes four specific parts: gender, number, age, and consent. Gender is referred to or it is dismissed as part of the definition. Number is usually specifically spelled out (usually it is two). Age is usually referred to in terms of ‘adults’. Consent is usually referred to where the parties must be ‘consenting’.
Thus number of spouses is directly linked to gender of spouses in legally defined marriage. The two qualifications legally and inseperably define marriage.
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
And, incidentally, the exception involving public funding applies ONLY to the area of operations for which public funding has been accepted. If a church accepts public funding for the operation of a homeless shelter, then they will have to comply with nondiscrimination laws as applies to the operations of that shelter. This will not, however, affect their right to practice religious discrimination in other areas of their operation, however, so they would still be absolutely free to refuse to marry gay people.
The church in New Jersey which tried to refuse the use of its pavilion on the beach to a lesbian couple and was overruled by a court, lost its case because it had accepted public funding by leasing the property to the city for public use. They therefore lost the right to discriminate as to who was permitted to make use of the property. They did not lose tax-exempt status for their church, which was not leased for public use, nor were they compelled to allow lesbians to be married in their church (or even attend Sunday services there). The ruling applied only to the property which they had leased out for public use.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
#357,
admin note: you just crossed a very explicit comment policy line. Do so again and you will no longer be able to comment here. You can review the comment policies here.
Comment by nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
No, nasamomdele, the term “adult” is specified state by state with regards to consent for sexual activity or marriage. Gender, however, is not. Until Prop 22 passed here in CA in 2000, there was no specification of gender in marriage laws whatsoever. And it was found to be unconstitutional because there was nothing in the state constitution limiting marriage to mixed-gender couples, and there were specific provisions in the state constitution prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.
Sure there may be evaluations in the future as to whether or not polygamous couples should qualify for legal marital status. But the point is that polygamy is much more dissimilar as compared with typical marriage in this country than is gay marriage, and the family law statutes which are readily modified to accommodate same-gender marriage do not readily accommodate polygamous marriage. Additionally, there is existing USSC case law prohibiting polygamous marriage. You seem to be sidestepping these facts as “minor details.
As I said earlier, I have no intrinsic objection to polygamous marriage. I do not believe it is inherently immoral. But it is a completely and utterly separate issue. The only juncture between the two is that both involve civil marriage.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Given that Polygamy is well attested in the Old Testament, it seems odd that someone from a Judeo-Christian faith like ours would deride it as not traditional and without precedent.
The whole point of freedom is to allow people to make choices which are “without precedent.”
Comment by Derek — April 8, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
RE #360, Moderator, thank you. It is not often that someone defends my potential for righteousness, and I particularly don’t expect it on religious sites (though I realize it is a direct portion of your comment policies). But it is appreciated, and it touches my heart. You have been nothing but kind to me, here, regardless of the nature of my positions, and it moves me.
Comment by Lorian — April 8, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
Moderator,
I would love to know exactly where I crossed a line on #360 so I can avoid doing so in the future.
I honestly don’t know.
Comment by Nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
I guess I don’t see how this is so. It appears that it is only in number of consenting adults (as per the parameters of a marriage definition I mentioned in prior deleted comment)?
This is besides the point entirely. There are contemporary state constitutional definitions of marriage based on gender that would require USSC overturning- a much more daunting task than reworking existing case law or an antiquated USSC ruling that had no precedent to begin with.
No, not really. Perhaps they simply required more explanation.
I’m really only pointing out that this issue isn’t as cut and dry or easy as SSM proponents are apt to think. It is all about arbitrary definitions based on personal values and equally defensible on each side. I think victories by either side are extremely bittersweet.
Comment by Nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Derek,
Are you saying Polygamy has a precedent for inclusion in a definition of marriage and always has?
And freedom is based on choices without precedent? I’m not sure I follow this.
Comment by Nasamomdele — April 8, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
Not a daunting task at all. There were contemporary state definitions of marriage which defined it as a union between two people of the same race prior to Loving v. Virginia. Loving simply invalidated such statutes and made interracial marriage legal in all states simultaneously. In fact, many of those antimiscegenation laws continued on the books in various states, like Alabama, until quite recently, but became unenforcable due to Loving.
Just because some states have chosen to enact laws which ban the recognition of marriages between two people of the same gender does not mean that same-gendered couples do not have the RIGHT to have their relationships accorded the same civil rights and recognition as those of straight couples. When a court overturns an unconstitutional statute forbidding legal recognition of our relationships and barring our access to the civil rights and protections enjoyed by other couples who have made similar commitments to our own, they are simply declaring an impediment invalid, not “giving” us rights. The rights were there, but were being denied by way of an unconstitutional law.
Federal DOMA, and state-level laws which block same-gender couples who are legally married from having their marriages recognized and from accessing the civil rights and protections which are due to them and their families by way of that marriage, are in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, just as were those antimiscegenation laws which banned the recognition of marriages between couples of mixed races prior to Loving v. Virginia.
There is nothing particularly complicated or nuanced about this nasamomdele, nor is there a lack of legal precedent for the process. You may find it disturbing because you are unwilling or unable to come to terms with the idea that two people of the same gender might experience the same deep loving commitment for one another as you might experience with your spouse.
But it is actually a very simple change, which has nothing to do with your religion or with your religious rights or with your freedom to practice your religion in the manner of your own choosing. In fact, it has little to do with you at all, personally, unless you are gay and wish to marry your partner. You do not have to change one iota of your personal beliefs, nor does your church have to change one iota of its teachings, in order for my children to enjoy the same rights and protections as full and complete citizens of this nation as your children enjoy.
Comment by Lorian — April 9, 2009 @ 12:05 am
Nasa, Telling us we are damned? Yeah, if you can’t see that line crossing perhaps you need to get your vision checked.
I haven’t read most of the comments, because I’ve been busy in the highly important feminist pursuit of looking for a new hair style, but .. . .
you know, my favorite thing about this whole debate is it’s already won (nenernenernener) Our parents are outraged, we are conflicted (though not me so much), and the teenagers couldn’t care less. They’re all gay marriage all the time.
Deal with it.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 9, 2009 @ 12:07 am
#366, You addressed Derek, but I’ll answer — Yes, polygamy has been one of the definitions of marriage since before written history began. It is recorded throughout Jewish scripture, as well as the written and oral traditions of other cultures. It is a time-honored manner of cohabitation. You are surprised by that?
And yes, freedom is based in choices without precedent. Absolutely. Freedom is the right to live our lives in the manner of our own choosing, until and unless our manner of life impedes upon the rights and liberties of another person. So, unless someone can demonstrate that my actions cause harm to someone else, I am free to pursue them.
For instance, I have the freedom to run through a field yelling, “FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! EVERYONE OUT!!!” But when I run through the doorway of a crowed theater and continue yelling this, I have then impeded upon the rights of those in the theater by causing an unsafe situation in which they could be harmed. That is where my rights end and theirs begin.
Flying an airplane is a behavior which has no precedent in the history of humanity. In order to establish ground rules for the operation of an airplane, then, we must consider several factors. We cannot forbid or regulate it solely on the basis of the fact that it has no precedent. People have the freedom to try new things which have never been tried before. We cannot forbid it on the basis of someone’s belief that it is simply “wrong.” There were those who claimed, “If God wanted men to fly, He’d have given us wings!” But this is not a convincing legal argument for banning or regulating the flying of airplanes. On the other hand, airplanes can and do cause injuries and death in the hands of an unqualified pilot. This, then, is the basis upon which the government has the right to regulate who may or may not fly an airplane. The issue of demonstrable harm trumps personal freedom.
In the same way, in order to present convincing argument that same-gender marriage should be illegal it is necessary not just to say, “It has never been this way before,” or, “My religion declares that it is a sin,” but rather, “Gay marriage causes xyz demonstrable harm.” Foes of gay marriage have yet to present any convincing evidence, however, that gay marriage causes any inherent demonstrable harm either to the participants in the marriage, to their offspring, or to society.
Some people like to claim that — somehow — society will collapse, straight marriage will be harmed or “devalued,” children will be confused, and life as we know it will likely come to a screeching halt, probably in a rain of fire and brimstone — should gay people be allowed to marry. However, they have yet to present any solid, scientific proof which even begins to back up their worries. Several states and countries have now legalized gay marriage, and yet the sky still remains firmly intact above us, fire and brimstone are stubbornly withheld, straight people continue to marry and divorce as usual, children of gay parents are equally as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as their straight-parented peers, and generally, life continues to move along in pretty much the manner to which we have become accustomed.
Comment by Lorian — April 9, 2009 @ 12:21 am
fmhLisa,
I was actually quoting Lorian, with as much implication for pro-SSM folks and anti-SSM folks. That’s been my argument the whole time. “Victory never comes without costs”.
And you’ve won pro-SSM) when the 30 states that have won traditional definitions of marriage have those repealed.
I’ve been thinking that my discussion with Lorian was very civilized. You have hated me without context.
I rarely visit this site anymore for this reason. Opposing points of view, no matter how tasteful, are often isolated, demonized, and attacked.
I really think that I deserve an apology.
Comment by Nasamomdele — April 9, 2009 @ 12:50 am
Lorian,
You defined freedom well. But freedom is not without boundaries and therefore, not without precedent.
And your demand for scientific proof is fairly valid, but is a straw man- it cannot be answered without appeasing your demand for change, first. You’re asking for a chicken before the egg existed.
In the same way I could demand proof that SSM would not stigmatize religious definitions of marriage. That centuries-old practice and marriage norms have no purpose but to satisfy the whims of those who engage in them- that they have simply been that way and mean nothing today.
I could demand that you show proof that such legal innovation and social engineering has not resulted in negative impacts and proven activists wrong (slippery slopes, destabilization of society).
I think you address my points relatively respectfully, and I appreciate that. I won’t bother you any more about the topic, partially thanks to the establishment. A very interesting article on this topic is here. It advocates neither side, rather advocating more humility in approaching the matter. I think that is wise council. This issue causes harm either way it goes.
Peace out.
Comment by Nasamomdele — April 9, 2009 @ 1:08 am
We have won. When you and I are drooling in our nursing homes, all your grandchildren (shaking their heads at silly old fashioned grannies) will have long since voted to overturn those arcane bigoted laws. And their kids won’t even remember why you were so outraged. Time is not on your side my friend.
And Nasa, I can’t decide if you’re pulling my leg or not. I will assume for this one last comment that you really have no clue as to the damnation you so blithely flung at Lorian. Perhaps you really thought that by telling Lorian that she was wise to admit to her own damnation (which isn’t at all what her analogy implied) that you were simply saying “that victory never comes without costs”, which also (if that is what you were “agreeing” with) wasn’t at all what she was saying.
If you don’t understand what damned if you do/don’t means, and how it would apply to your arguments . . . well, I’m not inclined to go into that level of explaining the obvious. Sometimes these things move fast, so maybe it was an honest mistake, but dude, it was a hum dinger.
Either way, you missed the point, and your response came off as a direct condemnation of a persons personal righteousness
See comment policies:
Then go a little further and read our policy regarding your assertion that “Opposing points of view, no matter how tasteful (darling, your hair is fabulous and you are so wise to admit you are damned.), are often isolated, demonized, and attacked.”
Namely you are expressly forbidden from saying:
And I think I will add a new rule(because I’m a tyrant and I can)
we forbid any comment in this (tiresome) vein:
Comment by fMhLisa — April 9, 2009 @ 1:43 am
It just occurred to me that Lorian could be a man (and this is something I should know, but just realized I don’t). If this is the case replace all pronouns with their male equivalent. It seems like the internet would be the perfect reason for us to start using some genderless pronouns, it’s all so confusing.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 9, 2009 @ 1:52 am
No wonder many objective viewers of the Mormon church think it’s so odd . . . “our Female God is CLEARLY not lesbian” I just can’t really picture such sentiments coming from anywhere else. O_o
It just doesn’t make sense to me that we came into being through some Godly sex act. Do we have spirit chromosomes? Spirit oocytes? Spirit orgasms?
Besides, it seems that since the ’90s, the Taylorian doctrine of quasi-polytheistic, future personal Godhood has been rejected, or at least hush-hushed.
Comment by Portia — April 9, 2009 @ 2:09 am
@FMHLisa - 100 Hour Board writers have been using the genderless pronoun “werf” for years!
Comment by Portia — April 9, 2009 @ 2:10 am
Also, for the record, I don’t think sex is “disgusting” or “unholy,” or something (quite the opposite!), I just think this whole folk belief in Heavenly Father and Mother(s) having billions and billions of rounds of coitus for millennia falls squarely in the realm of “highly speculative, quite possibly harmful” non-Christian doctrine.
Comment by Portia — April 9, 2009 @ 2:15 am
I seem to remember my english teacher positing a genderless prounoun as te (he/she) tem (him/her) and tes (his/hers)
Although, that might not be how she spelled it, as it was a very long time ago.
Comment by Hmm — April 9, 2009 @ 2:16 am
376, “rounds of coitus”
That makes it sound like a sport… not that I’m opposed to that on principle…
Comment by Latter-day Guy — April 9, 2009 @ 4:49 am
re: 366
I’m saying that it is inaccurate to classify polygamy as untraditional or unprecedented.
If one’s only option is to do what everyone else is doing, one really isn’t free, are they? There is no room in such a situation for innovation.
re: 373
Yep, we need to reform English for neuter personal pronouns.
re: 374
There was recently some discussion on that topic in this post.
Comment by Derek — April 9, 2009 @ 8:47 am
I’ve seen several different versions of the genderless pronoun, but none that seem to be in actual use (thus making everyone reading scratch heads and say “hu” what’s a “hu”?
I have to say I’m a fan of werf, (I’ve never heard that one before) mostly because it sounds funny and it’s the pith of simplicity. Plus it makes an attractive and handy expletive (we mormons do so love the mild ones).
Oh Werf!
Comment by fmhLisa — April 9, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Oh never fear, religious groups’ ability to enforce their own requirements for the definition of marriage are intact.
Take my first marriage, for example. Ten years and two children. My ex filed for a Catholic tribunal review and lied in writing about it. After swapping letters repeatedly with a Monsignor who officiated, he agreed that my ex was lying, but a technicality in canon law (the fact that we did not have a bishop bless the union, which was an interfaith marriage- never mind that my ex never practiced the faith to begin with, was divorced by me for commiting unrepentant adultery…and applied for the invalidation while he lived with his girlfriend). He claimed he’d never oficially abandoned his faith (I sent the Msgr. a copy of his confirmational certificate from the Episcopal church- that’s pretty official, if you ask me-not to mention he sporadically attended an Episcopal church nearby and I sent a copy of his name on the membership roll).
I was very hurt- to a level that surprised me. He’d broken every moral code, and I’d divorced him…but I never denied the relationship, never denied he was once my husband and remained his daughters’ father. Divorcing acknowledges the marriage existed but didn’t work…invalidating- well, it speaks for itself, doesn’t it? I thought the two year affair had been sufficient invalidation at the time. When I confronted my ex, he told me his (non-practicing former Catholic) fiancee had her eye on a little Catholic chapel, but they wouldn’t allow them to marry there unless he invalidated the first marriage- she was the one who initiated it in his name and he allowed it, to “keep her quiet”. (He didn’t even end up marrying her- but that’s another disgusting aspect of the whole deal.)
He was able to have our marriage invalidated and I still have all the Monsignor’s apologetic letters- additional humiliation that took place 8 years after a heartbreaking divorce. It did not seem to matter that they lied about cohabitating (he used his mother’s address), lied about the reason for divorce, lied about intending to practice Catholicism (they were both members of an Episcopal church in their hometown) and that invalidating our marriage declared our children illegitimate.
Now this involved a heterosexual married couple. Bet your bottom dollar that civil law will not even remotely affect their decisions regarding marriage of any variety.
Comment by Kimberly — April 9, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Hi, it’s me again! Thanks for all your comments. If you’d like to continue the conversation, please email me at fmhecs at gmail dot com. Happy Passover and Easter!
Comment by ECS — April 9, 2009 @ 12:25 pm