Riiiiiight. This final sentence in the letter read in sacrament meeting: "The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues" apparently neutralizes the previous statements about "political neutrality."
I agree that it’s pretty clear that the church has allowed themselves a rhetorical out here---it’s in the text. Also, while I’m all for full domestic-partner benefits, I do fully support defining marriage between a man and a woman. Church doctrine aside, “traditional” marriage does provide for a stable society. Where I think efforts become misguided is when defining marriage as such is then extended to denying full partner benefits. Would we prefer that insurance companies benefit? That’s just inhumane. I still hold to the fact that a “democracy” is marked and maintained by respect for the rights of minority groups or individuals. Finally, I had to add that I think that the implication that comes across in a lot of your blog entries that somehow the church and the democratic party must be antithetical is short-sighted. In my book, Mormons are radicals, lefties, liberals at the core. I’m not an ardent democrat in spite of the fact that I’m Mormon---I’m a democrat because I’m a Mormon. I normally try to exercise a little more restraint the blogosphere--but this last point has been eating at me. Would love to hear from you sometime soon.
Marlene, In theory, I agree with you. Being Dem and Mormon are NOT mutually exclusive. But, I have seen many behaviors and received many forwards that lead me to believe that many Mormons equate Dems as the devil. They vote party-line Republican without a thought as to why or where they stand on the issue. Being a liberal and a Mormon has caused me heartache after heartache by having to choose between my morals and the morals that I'm supposed to have as a Mormon. Obviously, you don't share the same struggle: you are comfortable sitting left of the middle. I am, too, when I don't have to constantly explain myself. I may be insecure about being a Dem. I am most uncomfortable about the Prop 8 situation because I have ALWAYS taken comfort in the letter read every year: I had my out. I could vote my conscious and not be a terrible sinner. When the church steps in and starts telling me how to vote and which ballot items to support financially, I get really anxious. Perhaps that my rebellious nature, but I take my civil liberties pretty seriously. I am tired of constantly having to censor myself fearing repercussions stemming from my blog. This never was a family-friendly, run-of-the-mill bragger-blog. It's that, too. But I have a lot on my mind and I guess it's coming out.
I don't know why having to explain yourself should be so painful. I usually relish the opportunity =]. And, while I myself have voiced similar complaints about a monolithic political culture---i really don't know many people who would qualify as "they", the unthinking voter. Also, to complicate this a bit further, is it really the so-called hypocrisy of the church you're troubled about or is it just the stance on this particular issue? I personally wish the church would take a more politically active stand on other equally moral issues: global warming and the crisis of the environment, human rights abuses in places like Darfur and Tibet, and the imposition of the U.S. abroad. I'm guessing that you wouldn't feel so uneasy were this the case. Lastly, how is ever really possible to separate moral and political issues? I wish i could eliminate some of the angst for you. I feel that there is so much else to be hopeful and proactive about, especially now. I send you a virtual hug.
I am willing to accept the fact that homosexual (sexual) relations are sinful, and will not dispute it.
However, I am opposed to Prop 8 because:
1. The Marriage Amendment is inconsistent with the character of the divinely-inspired Constitution, and would fundamentally alter that character.
2. Using legislation of any sort to ban homosexual marriages is an exercise in futility–indeed, such legislation would in many ways likely be self-defeating, subverting the very purpose of the legislation.
3. legal coercion, particularly on religious matters, is inconsistent with the principles of the Gospel.
“The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.” - Brigham Young
Well, I've prayed about it and it ain't right and I won't support it. That doesn't mean I don't sustain Monson, I do. I just understand that he's also a man and capable of making mistakes.
You're right Marlene, I would love it if the church would step in and say "The events in Darfur are terrible! There are terrible human rights abuses going on. Please donate what you can to the cause."
Right now, over $27 million dollars have been spent on Prop 8 by both sides. Can you imagine what that money could be used for in a place like Darfur?
The difference is that the church would be DEFENDING human rights rather than seeking to change an arbitrary difference in California state law. Same-sex unions are recognized in California. Prop 8 only seeks to "define marriage." What a waste of money AND resources.
Okay- me again. As a preface, I hope no one feels "crucified" by my comments but this whole Prop 8 issue has become quite personal, as it has to others participating in this discussion.
Regarding the money that has been spent for this cause. I think members of the church on the whole are mixed up about how to spend their money, but that issue aside. Have you read the church's statement here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
There are some serious ramifications of same-sex marriage. Some things to think about.
As far as President Monson making a "mistake". The man is entitled to revelation from God, how can we judge?
Lastly, the seeming "contradiction". The church won't endorse a candidate and it comforts me to know that this same letter would have been issued if Mitt Romney were the candidate. But a legislative cause is different.
The proclmation states: “We call upon responsible citizens... to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” We believe in sustaining the law, therefore we make an effort to enact laws in accordance with church doctrine. I liked the point Marlene made about domestic-partner benefits while still defining marriage between a man and woman for societal stability.
That is what scares me the most - members who blindly follow. Yes, Monson is entitled to revelation from God, but he is not God.
"With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances.” - Bruce R. McConkie
It is discrimination, plain and simple. We should not force our version of morality upon others. No one is asking us to recognize gay marriage within the church. Without choice, there is no agency.
I'm already aware of the so-called "ramifications" of same-sex marriage (I got the email too) and it's a bunch of fear-mongering lies. My friend Amberly articulates it perfectly here: http://johnandamberlysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-on-prop-8-and-no-on-false-posts-and.html
All this money and time wasted on semantics and promoting discrimination is not in line with gospel principles no matter how much people try and stretch what the Proclamation says in order to justify it.
Wow. That hurt on so many levels. People argue that being opposed to gay marriage is showing a lack of tolerance. They say it is not being Christ-like. But show me, anywhere in the teachings of Christ, where he tolerated sin. And then show me, where He teaches that homosexuality is not a sin. I am so tired of being told that I discriminate or have prejudices. I know gay people and I don't love or care about them any less than I do anyone else. As for the government drawing a line about what is marriage and what isn't marriage it is completely appropriate. You say we should be able to marry anyone we want. Would you have it so that cousins or siblings could marry if they chose? Would you have it that a man could marry a gorilla if he chose? We all know the concept of a slippery slope...
I don't have the heart to address the other accusations made against me. I only ask this, if you believe in respecting the morality and beliefs of others, please respect the morality and beliefs of those who are on the other side of this conflict. Call it blindness if you like, but perhaps we have prayed about this issue the same way you did and I just ask that you withhold criticism of our choice.
I don't think anyone is attacking you, Jo. I think a lot of us feel hurt by the decisions of the church to get involved with politics on this level.
I don't think anyone is asking you to accept gay marriage, like you said, we can't force our morals on other people. What we want is for the government to allow two consenting adults to be recognized by that government-- and in reality, California already does. Prop 8 is, like Janee said, semantics only.
I don't think you are blind or bigoted. The reason Prop 8 bothers me is because it's none of the church's business what I do with my vote or my money, as long as I am supporting what I feel is right, and of course, paying my tithing. Long ago, Joseph Smith said "Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves." I think it's possible to think homosexuality is wrong, but to let people make their choices. I feel the same way about abortion. However, I'm a firm believer in free agency. What is happening here is that free agency is being taken from not only homosexuals, but from church members as well.
I know you are a loving, kind person, Jo. And I know this is a tough issue. I know that people fall on both sides of the argument, member or not. I'm sure you and I feel similarly frustrated and slightly sick by the arguments, just on different sides. You have good insights, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope this doesn't scare you from my blog forever... I really do appreciate your thoughtful comments that help me see the other side of things. What issue should we tackle next? This bailout thing has me really nervous....
Janee and Jensie know full and well how I stand on the issue. To me, there's just no arguing with a devote Mormon. Especially if a prophet told them how to feel and what to believe. I admire the Mormons who took a moment to think for themselves and realized that this isn't right.
Regardless if homosexuality is a sin or not, or whether Jesus Christ taught about it or didn't, that shouldn't matter. People sin everyday, and they have the God given right of the agency to do so. So I wonder, why are we trying to take away homosexuals right to marry, even if you consider it a sin? They have the agency to "sin" if they want.
The only argument left on that is to say "well, it's going to harm my marriage and destroy society".
Bull.
Homosexuality isn't anything knew. It's legal in other countries (has been for years), and has been legal in some states in the US for years as well (Massachusetts). And THOSE states are actually better off in a lot of important aspects. Their society is striving. Children aren't dying, marriages are still valid in all aspects, the air quality isn't deadly, and God hasn't taken it upon himself to take a cheese grator to their skin and squeeze lemon juice on it. Gay marriage is legal in many parts of the world. Society isn't crumbling. Your heterosexual marriage hasn't lost anything.
Before I went left and ditched Mormonism, I tried desperately to convince my very liberal sister in law that gay marriage would destroy society. I tried to write a paper on it for school (I had the choice to write a paper on whatever I wanted). I researched every aspect of every resource I could. And there's no evidence. There's not even any logical claims or arguments. There's nothing. I have been convinced through my own research that gay marriage is not harmful.
Bottom line, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But don't limit others right to choose. In ANY form. To me, it just sounds like the all to familiar plan of Satan that Mormons like to believe in, which took place in the pre-existence. You know, no agency... And you all take pride in the fact that you didn't choose that plan. So why go down that same road now?
As for the bailout, Richard has me convinced it was pretty necesssary. From what I'm hearing even the liberals (Obama) think so. :) I'm hopeful that the congress/senate will find a way to keep it from just benefitting the execs but based on economic principles it sounds like this had to happen in order to save the economy. I know that sounds drastic, I sort of felt like if banks gave quetsionable loans and it backfired, let them suffer the consequences. But I guess even for small business/new business/all business it's crucial to be able to get a loan, and without Fannie May and Freddi Mac that would have become really tough. Gosh I've said enough, but I know how you feel about the CEO's taking all the risk and then coming out on top when the bottom falls out.
That's one promise Obama made that I hope he'll keep should be our next president.
I think the economy will straighten out WITHOUT the bail outs. But, Bill Clinton had me reassured that if they do pass the bill that the economy will be ok. When the government leant the money after they great depression, the economy made money. So, we'll see what happens. Either way, it's just not fair.
Words do matter or we wouldn’t still be having this discussion. They sting, they exclude, and they offend---especially when devoid of the inflection or pause that a more personal setting usually affords. I didn’t vote for the similar 2004 marriage amendment in MI nor did/do I feel any religious compunction about the act. I’m drawn into this conversation bc of the, I think, faulty insistence on having to either defend or attack things mormon when tackling this difficult and divisive issue. Why not extend the scope of accusation, say to evangelicals in the midwest or wackos in Alaska? As to the claims about shoddy or unfounded research, even a cursory investigation into the subject proves that research on both sides is prolific and substantive—just a google search satisfies this claim. See Blankenhorn for the latimes here or this article in the harvard journal of law and public policy or this study by researchers at Yale and the Oak Brook College of Law or this one out of Rutgers or say the the AIDS journal or this site trying to account for the stats on gay monogamy. I figured out how to post links! In my mind, the only untenable argument is to conclude that the only possible grounds for dissension on this issue center on a blind, illogical adherence to an ever-controlling and hate-mongering faith. I am certain that all in this discussion strive to make informed and careful decisions as voters and as individuals. My hope that we can agree to disagree in a way that is civil and humble and thus avoid having to fall back on the logic of “I think better than you do.”
I’m still weighing in on the bailout and would enjoy more of an “I told you so” moment toward pro-freemarket/anti-regulations fiscal conservatives were it not for the fact that I’m terrified. More apologies here for another long comment.
First,I apologize if I've made anyone on here feel attacked or disrespected. That is not my intention ever. I do let my tone get away with me on these things. Second, I NEVER said in any way that Christ teaches that homosexuality is not a sin. In fact, in my previous post, I agreed that homosexuality is a sin.
With that being said, I do find it puzzling that people can justify taking away (or refusing to give) a person's rights and treating them like second-class citizens because they know a gay person and "love" them, as if that somehow makes it ok.
The slippery slope argument is moot (and so tired) because the key words here are CONSENTING ADULTS (sorry, not yelling just highlighting). Animals, children, etc. would not apply. Cousins are allowed to marry in many jurisdictions eventhough I think that's gross.
I'm so sorry that you are sick of people saying you discriminate or have prejudices, but that is precisely what you are doing by supporting legislation like Prop 8. Like Amberly noted, if you are opposed to gay marriage, don't participate, but no one has the right to dictate the choices of others. There is a difference between standing up for what you believe and actively oppressing other human beings.
I agree, Christ did not and will not tolerate sin. But show me where he forced his will upon others and didn't allow people to exercise their free agency.
Marlene is right, it's not just confined to Mormons either. So much injustice has been carried out in the name of the Lord throughout all religions and this is no different. It's a shame.
However, when you argue your stance based on the Proclamation and such, the discussion is naturally going to be limited to Mormonism, although I do understand your point Marlene.
Anyway, what's crazy to me is that if the prophet received revelation that we are to practice polygamy again, the church would want the government to stay out of it (actually that's already happened - read the Supreme Court decision where the Church lost).
"As for the government drawing a line about what is marriage and what isn't marriage it is completely appropriate." I agree to disagree.
No but really, we have to have laws. (Thank you Captain Obvious.) For example, by having a legal drinking age are we in infringing on the free agency of a 19 year old? Should we just let an individual choose how fast they want drive on the freeway? Or is it oppression to deny methamphetamines to consenting adults? Regulation is necessary. I am not on a personal journey to dictate the choices of others. I just believe that we set standards for the benefit of society. So I guess where I choose to agree to disagree is whether or not gay marriage is in the best interest of society. I think I've made it clear that I feel it is not in the best interest of society, thus necessitating regulation.
I do not have the power to take away anyone's agency by the way I vote. The government does not have the power to take away agency by enacting a law.
Government has the power to take away free agency by enacting laws like Prop 8 that take away a person's choice.
By voting for those laws, you are supporting taking away a person's choice and thus their free agency.
Your examples deal with minors, health, and safety. Gay marriage has nothing to do with those interests of society (or any really for that matter).
Legislation like Prop 8 serves to dictate what CONSENTING ADULTS do with their PERSONAL relationships (again not yelling, sorry).
Hey, I'm all for standards, I guess where we agree to disagree is whether we have the right to force others to believe what we believe and do what we do.
I just want to repeat what I said before about free agency. I guess I don't understand how enacting laws takes away agency. People will always have the power to make their own choices regardless of laws. Just because there is a law that says a man can not have sex with an unconsenting woman, men still do it. Right? Just because I vote against late term abortions, women will still have them. (Sorry to bring abortion back into this. It is just for the sake of example.) No one can take away agency. No one.
As for why I believe that gay marriage is detrimental to society, that belief is not just based on scientific research. It is based on the belief that the apostles of the Lord are entitled to inspiration. And I know you don't believe they were on track with this Prop 8, but I do believe it. I believe God speaks to the prophets to warn us. I also believe we can't always trust science, and that is why we have faith.
Even if society teaches that gay marriage isn't harmful to the sanctity of the family, if the gospel teaches it that is enough for me. It wouldn't be the first principle in the gospel that wasn't proven by science or tried by societal pressure.
It is quite clear you don't understand why enacting laws takes away free agency. But it is really quite simple as I illustrated above.
Despite our faith, and despite all the things you mentioned, we all know right from wrong and discriminating against people is wrong, despite what any prophet says.
I'd also like to reiterate my point about the prophets and apostles being subject to the weaknesses, temptations, and prejudices of mortal men despite their great inspiration. It is also evident you do not agree with this contention either, eventhough this is what the church teaches. I do sustain Monson, I do, but this is just not right. There is nothing in the gospel that teaches that the church should get involved in politicking. We are to teach and learn correct principles and act for ourselves as Jensie mentioned. With that we should also let others act for themselves as well.
So use whatever method you want in order to justify it in your mind so you can sleep at night but it doesn't change the facts. What is being Christlike and loving your neighbor? I suppose it's subject to wide interpretation. All I know is that I can look a gay person in the face and truly say I love them because I'm not actively trying to oppress them.
Man, I don't check this thread for a day and it's already over with! I'm gonna comment even though everyone else may be done with it.
To me, equality for homosexuals and their agency to marry or not is so much simpler to accept and support when I don't believe that a man was told by a god to order everyone to vote against a bill.
That's just me...
(This is suppossed to be more funny than mean. I hope that's obvious.)
But- I still don't understand, or is their logical evidence that gay marriage will harm society. It won't ever make sense to me.
I think this is more about the conservative mind set that makes them fear change, then trying to "protect society".
I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone. My comments are a little more feather ruffling just to get response.
This is our family blog. Doc is the dad, working on a DO and a PhD in neuroscience, so technically he's a double-doc. Mamadoula is a working doula and in school to become a nurse-midwife. Sillygirl is our funny daughter who makes our lives crazy and fun. Ashman is our newborn son who is generally happy, but keeps us on our toes. We live in Michigan, own a home, and have 1 very puppyish dog, Lemmy.
27 comments:
HAHAHA
Riiiiiight. This final sentence in the letter read in sacrament meeting:
"The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues"
apparently neutralizes the previous statements about "political neutrality."
I agree that it’s pretty clear that the church has allowed themselves a rhetorical out here---it’s in the text. Also, while I’m all for full domestic-partner benefits, I do fully support defining marriage between a man and a woman. Church doctrine aside, “traditional” marriage does provide for a stable society. Where I think efforts become misguided is when defining marriage as such is then extended to denying full partner benefits. Would we prefer that insurance companies benefit? That’s just inhumane. I still hold to the fact that a “democracy” is marked and maintained by respect for the rights of minority groups or individuals. Finally, I had to add that I think that the implication that comes across in a lot of your blog entries that somehow the church and the democratic party must be antithetical is short-sighted. In my book, Mormons are radicals, lefties, liberals at the core. I’m not an ardent democrat in spite of the fact that I’m Mormon---I’m a democrat because I’m a Mormon. I normally try to exercise a little more restraint the blogosphere--but this last point has been eating at me. Would love to hear from you sometime soon.
Marlene,
In theory, I agree with you. Being Dem and Mormon are NOT mutually exclusive. But, I have seen many behaviors and received many forwards that lead me to believe that many Mormons equate Dems as the devil. They vote party-line Republican without a thought as to why or where they stand on the issue.
Being a liberal and a Mormon has caused me heartache after heartache by having to choose between my morals and the morals that I'm supposed to have as a Mormon.
Obviously, you don't share the same struggle: you are comfortable sitting left of the middle. I am, too, when I don't have to constantly explain myself. I may be insecure about being a Dem.
I am most uncomfortable about the Prop 8 situation because I have ALWAYS taken comfort in the letter read every year: I had my out. I could vote my conscious and not be a terrible sinner. When the church steps in and starts telling me how to vote and which ballot items to support financially, I get really anxious. Perhaps that my rebellious nature, but I take my civil liberties pretty seriously.
I am tired of constantly having to censor myself fearing repercussions stemming from my blog. This never was a family-friendly, run-of-the-mill bragger-blog. It's that, too. But I have a lot on my mind and I guess it's coming out.
I don't know why having to explain yourself should be so painful. I usually relish the opportunity =]. And, while I myself have voiced similar complaints about a monolithic political culture---i really don't know many people who would qualify as "they", the unthinking voter. Also, to complicate this a bit further, is it really the so-called hypocrisy of the church you're troubled about or is it just the stance on this particular issue? I personally wish the church would take a more politically active stand on other equally moral issues: global warming and the crisis of the environment, human rights abuses in places like Darfur and Tibet, and the imposition of the U.S. abroad. I'm guessing that you wouldn't feel so uneasy were this the case. Lastly, how is ever really possible to separate moral and political issues? I wish i could eliminate some of the angst for you. I feel that there is so much else to be hopeful and proactive about, especially now. I send you a virtual hug.
I am willing to accept the fact that homosexual (sexual) relations are sinful, and will not dispute it.
However, I am opposed to Prop 8 because:
1. The Marriage Amendment is inconsistent with the character of the divinely-inspired Constitution, and would fundamentally alter that character.
2. Using legislation of any sort to ban homosexual marriages is an exercise in futility–indeed, such legislation would in many ways likely be self-defeating, subverting the very purpose of the legislation.
3. legal coercion, particularly on religious matters, is inconsistent with the principles of the Gospel.
http://aliberalmormon.wordpress.com/concerns-about-the-marriage-amendment/
“The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.” - Brigham Young
Well, I've prayed about it and it ain't right and I won't support it. That doesn't mean I don't sustain Monson, I do. I just understand that he's also a man and capable of making mistakes.
I'm ready for my crucifixion now.
You're right Marlene, I would love it if the church would step in and say "The events in Darfur are terrible! There are terrible human rights abuses going on. Please donate what you can to the cause."
Right now, over $27 million dollars have been spent on Prop 8 by both sides. Can you imagine what that money could be used for in a place like Darfur?
The difference is that the church would be DEFENDING human rights rather than seeking to change an arbitrary difference in California state law. Same-sex unions are recognized in California. Prop 8 only seeks to "define marriage." What a waste of money AND resources.
Okay- me again. As a preface, I hope no one feels "crucified" by my comments but this whole Prop 8 issue has become quite personal, as it has to others participating in this discussion.
Regarding the money that has been spent for this cause. I think members of the church on the whole are mixed up about how to spend their money, but that issue aside. Have you read the church's statement here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
There are some serious ramifications of same-sex marriage. Some things to think about.
As far as President Monson making a "mistake". The man is entitled to revelation from God, how can we judge?
Lastly, the seeming "contradiction". The church won't endorse a candidate and it comforts me to know that this same letter would have been issued if Mitt Romney were the candidate. But a legislative cause is different.
The proclmation states: “We call upon responsible citizens... to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” We believe in sustaining the law, therefore we make an effort to enact laws in accordance with church doctrine. I liked the point Marlene made about domestic-partner benefits while still defining marriage between a man and woman for societal stability.
That is what scares me the most - members who blindly follow. Yes, Monson is entitled to revelation from God, but he is not God.
"With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances.” - Bruce R. McConkie
It is discrimination, plain and simple. We should not force our version of morality upon others. No one is asking us to recognize gay marriage within the church. Without choice, there is no agency.
I'm already aware of the so-called "ramifications" of same-sex marriage (I got the email too) and it's a bunch of fear-mongering lies. My friend Amberly articulates it perfectly here: http://johnandamberlysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-on-prop-8-and-no-on-false-posts-and.html
All this money and time wasted on semantics and promoting discrimination is not in line with gospel principles no matter how much people try and stretch what the Proclamation says in order to justify it.
Wow. That hurt on so many levels. People argue that being opposed to gay marriage is showing a lack of tolerance. They say it is not being Christ-like. But show me, anywhere in the teachings of Christ, where he tolerated sin. And then show me, where He teaches that homosexuality is not a sin. I am so tired of being told that I discriminate or have prejudices. I know gay people and I don't love or care about them any less than I do anyone else. As for the government drawing a line about what is marriage and what isn't marriage it is completely appropriate. You say we should be able to marry anyone we want. Would you have it so that cousins or siblings could marry if they chose? Would you have it that a man could marry a gorilla if he chose? We all know the concept of a slippery slope...
I don't have the heart to address the other accusations made against me. I only ask this, if you believe in respecting the morality and beliefs of others, please respect the morality and beliefs of those who are on the other side of this conflict. Call it blindness if you like, but perhaps we have prayed about this issue the same way you did and I just ask that you withhold criticism of our choice.
I don't think anyone is attacking you, Jo. I think a lot of us feel hurt by the decisions of the church to get involved with politics on this level.
I don't think anyone is asking you to accept gay marriage, like you said, we can't force our morals on other people. What we want is for the government to allow two consenting adults to be recognized by that government-- and in reality, California already does. Prop 8 is, like Janee said, semantics only.
I don't think you are blind or bigoted. The reason Prop 8 bothers me is because it's none of the church's business what I do with my vote or my money, as long as I am supporting what I feel is right, and of course, paying my tithing. Long ago, Joseph Smith said "Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves." I think it's possible to think homosexuality is wrong, but to let people make their choices. I feel the same way about abortion. However, I'm a firm believer in free agency. What is happening here is that free agency is being taken from not only homosexuals, but from church members as well.
I know you are a loving, kind person, Jo. And I know this is a tough issue. I know that people fall on both sides of the argument, member or not. I'm sure you and I feel similarly frustrated and slightly sick by the arguments, just on different sides. You have good insights, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope this doesn't scare you from my blog forever... I really do appreciate your thoughtful comments that help me see the other side of things. What issue should we tackle next? This bailout thing has me really nervous....
Alright! Something I wrote was quoted!
Janee and Jensie know full and well how I stand on the issue. To me, there's just no arguing with a devote Mormon. Especially if a prophet told them how to feel and what to believe. I admire the Mormons who took a moment to think for themselves and realized that this isn't right.
Regardless if homosexuality is a sin or not, or whether Jesus Christ taught about it or didn't, that shouldn't matter. People sin everyday, and they have the God given right of the agency to do so. So I wonder, why are we trying to take away homosexuals right to marry, even if you consider it a sin? They have the agency to "sin" if they want.
The only argument left on that is to say "well, it's going to harm my marriage and destroy society".
Bull.
Homosexuality isn't anything knew. It's legal in other countries (has been for years), and has been legal in some states in the US for years as well (Massachusetts). And THOSE states are actually better off in a lot of important aspects. Their society is striving. Children aren't dying, marriages are still valid in all aspects, the air quality isn't deadly, and God hasn't taken it upon himself to take a cheese grator to their skin and squeeze lemon juice on it. Gay marriage is legal in many parts of the world. Society isn't crumbling. Your heterosexual marriage hasn't lost anything.
Before I went left and ditched Mormonism, I tried desperately to convince my very liberal sister in law that gay marriage would destroy society. I tried to write a paper on it for school (I had the choice to write a paper on whatever I wanted). I researched every aspect of every resource I could. And there's no evidence. There's not even any logical claims or arguments. There's nothing. I have been convinced through my own research that gay marriage is not harmful.
Bottom line, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But don't limit others right to choose. In ANY form. To me, it just sounds like the all to familiar plan of Satan that Mormons like to believe in, which took place in the pre-existence. You know, no agency... And you all take pride in the fact that you didn't choose that plan. So why go down that same road now?
Sorry for the long comment.
Jensie, thanks I needed to hear that!
As for the bailout, Richard has me convinced it was pretty necesssary. From what I'm hearing even the liberals (Obama) think so. :) I'm hopeful that the congress/senate will find a way to keep it from just benefitting the execs but based on economic principles it sounds like this had to happen in order to save the economy. I know that sounds drastic, I sort of felt like if banks gave quetsionable loans and it backfired, let them suffer the consequences. But I guess even for small business/new business/all business it's crucial to be able to get a loan, and without Fannie May and Freddi Mac that would have become really tough. Gosh I've said enough, but I know how you feel about the CEO's taking all the risk and then coming out on top when the bottom falls out.
That's one promise Obama made that I hope he'll keep should be our next president.
I think the economy will straighten out WITHOUT the bail outs. But, Bill Clinton had me reassured that if they do pass the bill that the economy will be ok. When the government leant the money after they great depression, the economy made money. So, we'll see what happens. Either way, it's just not fair.
Words do matter or we wouldn’t still be having this discussion. They sting, they exclude, and they offend---especially when devoid of the inflection or pause that a more personal setting usually affords. I didn’t vote for the similar 2004 marriage amendment in MI nor did/do I feel any religious compunction about the act. I’m drawn into this conversation bc of the, I think, faulty insistence on having to either defend or attack things mormon when tackling this difficult and divisive issue. Why not extend the scope of accusation, say to evangelicals in the midwest or wackos in Alaska? As to the claims about shoddy or unfounded research, even a cursory investigation into the subject proves that research on both sides is prolific and substantive—just a google search satisfies this claim. See Blankenhorn for the latimes here or this article in the harvard journal of law and public policy or this study by researchers at Yale and the Oak Brook College of Law or this one out of Rutgers or say the the AIDS journal
or this site trying to account for the stats on gay monogamy.
I figured out how to post links!
In my mind, the only untenable argument is to conclude that the only possible grounds for dissension on this issue center on a blind, illogical adherence to an ever-controlling and hate-mongering faith. I am certain that all in this discussion strive to make informed and careful decisions as voters and as individuals. My hope that we can agree to disagree in a way that is civil and humble and thus avoid having to fall back on the logic of “I think better than you do.”
I’m still weighing in on the bailout and would enjoy more of an “I told you so” moment toward pro-freemarket/anti-regulations fiscal conservatives were it not for the fact that I’m terrified. More apologies here for another long comment.
First,I apologize if I've made anyone on here feel attacked or disrespected. That is not my intention ever. I do let my tone get away with me on these things. Second, I NEVER said in any way that Christ teaches that homosexuality is not a sin. In fact, in my previous post, I agreed that homosexuality is a sin.
With that being said, I do find it puzzling that people can justify taking away (or refusing to give) a person's rights and treating them like second-class citizens because they know a gay person and "love" them, as if that somehow makes it ok.
The slippery slope argument is moot (and so tired) because the key words here are CONSENTING ADULTS (sorry, not yelling just highlighting). Animals, children, etc. would not apply. Cousins are allowed to marry in many jurisdictions eventhough I think that's gross.
I'm so sorry that you are sick of people saying you discriminate or have prejudices, but that is precisely what you are doing by supporting legislation like Prop 8. Like Amberly noted, if you are opposed to gay marriage, don't participate, but no one has the right to dictate the choices of others. There is a difference between standing up for what you believe and actively oppressing other human beings.
I agree, Christ did not and will not tolerate sin. But show me where he forced his will upon others and didn't allow people to exercise their free agency.
Marlene is right, it's not just confined to Mormons either. So much injustice has been carried out in the name of the Lord throughout all religions and this is no different. It's a shame.
However, when you argue your stance based on the Proclamation and such, the discussion is naturally going to be limited to Mormonism, although I do understand your point Marlene.
Anyway, what's crazy to me is that if the prophet received revelation that we are to practice polygamy again, the church would want the government to stay out of it (actually that's already happened - read the Supreme Court decision where the Church lost).
"As for the government drawing a line about what is marriage and what isn't marriage it is completely appropriate." I agree to disagree.
Matthew 22:21
Okay I'm addicted I can't let it go!
No but really, we have to have laws. (Thank you Captain Obvious.) For example, by having a legal drinking age are we in infringing on the free agency of a 19 year old? Should we just let an individual choose how fast they want drive on the freeway? Or is it oppression to deny methamphetamines to consenting adults? Regulation is necessary. I am not on a personal journey to dictate the choices of others. I just believe that we set standards for the benefit of society. So I guess where I choose to agree to disagree is whether or not gay marriage is in the best interest of society. I think I've made it clear that I feel it is not in the best interest of society, thus necessitating regulation.
I do not have the power to take away anyone's agency by the way I vote. The government does not have the power to take away agency by enacting a law.
Okay I better stop before I get too redundant...
I know, I can't let it go either! :)
Government has the power to take away free agency by enacting laws like Prop 8 that take away a person's choice.
By voting for those laws, you are supporting taking away a person's choice and thus their free agency.
Your examples deal with minors, health, and safety. Gay marriage has nothing to do with those interests of society (or any really for that matter).
Legislation like Prop 8 serves to dictate what CONSENTING ADULTS do with their PERSONAL relationships (again not yelling, sorry).
Hey, I'm all for standards, I guess where we agree to disagree is whether we have the right to force others to believe what we believe and do what we do.
I just want to repeat what I said before about free agency. I guess I don't understand how enacting laws takes away agency. People will always have the power to make their own choices regardless of laws. Just because there is a law that says a man can not have sex with an unconsenting woman, men still do it. Right? Just because I vote against late term abortions, women will still have them. (Sorry to bring abortion back into this. It is just for the sake of example.) No one can take away agency. No one.
As for why I believe that gay marriage is detrimental to society, that belief is not just based on scientific research. It is based on the belief that the apostles of the Lord are entitled to inspiration. And I know you don't believe they were on track with this Prop 8, but I do believe it. I believe God speaks to the prophets to warn us. I also believe we can't always trust science, and that is why we have faith.
Even if society teaches that gay marriage isn't harmful to the sanctity of the family, if the gospel teaches it that is enough for me. It wouldn't be the first principle in the gospel that wasn't proven by science or tried by societal pressure.
It is quite clear you don't understand why enacting laws takes away free agency. But it is really quite simple as I illustrated above.
Despite our faith, and despite all the things you mentioned, we all know right from wrong and discriminating against people is wrong, despite what any prophet says.
I'd also like to reiterate my point about the prophets and apostles being subject to the weaknesses, temptations, and prejudices of mortal men despite their great inspiration. It is also evident you do not agree with this contention either, eventhough this is what the church teaches. I do sustain Monson, I do, but this is just not right. There is nothing in the gospel that teaches that the church should get involved in politicking. We are to teach and learn correct principles and act for ourselves as Jensie mentioned. With that we should also let others act for themselves as well.
So use whatever method you want in order to justify it in your mind so you can sleep at night but it doesn't change the facts. What is being Christlike and loving your neighbor? I suppose it's subject to wide interpretation. All I know is that I can look a gay person in the face and truly say I love them because I'm not actively trying to oppress them.
Can someone else back me up on this free agency thing or is it just Janee and me still in this?
Sorry Jo. This issue and thread is over for me. I've said my piece, and am moving on....
Alright alright, I bet this is the most comments you've had on one post? I find myself feeling a little jealous. Thanks for sparring Janee.
And by the way, I don't have any trouble sleeping at night and I have no problem looking a homosexual in the eye. But that's between me and them...
Yeah, I'm done too. Nice sparring with ya too Jo. You support your position well.
Man, I don't check this thread for a day and it's already over with! I'm gonna comment even though everyone else may be done with it.
To me, equality for homosexuals and their agency to marry or not is so much simpler to accept and support when I don't believe that a man was told by a god to order everyone to vote against a bill.
That's just me...
(This is suppossed to be more funny than mean. I hope that's obvious.)
But- I still don't understand, or is their logical evidence that gay marriage will harm society. It won't ever make sense to me.
I think this is more about the conservative mind set that makes them fear change, then trying to "protect society".
I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone. My comments are a little more feather ruffling just to get response.
Post a Comment