Blogger of Jared

115 Responses to “Born Gay…and with a Choice”

Well, there you go! Marriage is “all about the children.” Therefore, marriage should be ILLEGAL in any and all cases, unless the potential partners can show evidence of current fertility. Any person incapable of producing offspring MUST, for the protection of the sacred institution of marriage, be prevented from marrying. This includes elderly persons who have lost their spouse–their second, late-in-life (i.e. post-menopausal) marriages are an affront to the entire purpose of marriage, and MUST be prevented. Further, if a younger couple marry under the foolish assumption that they will bear children, and they subsequently fail to accomplish that goal within a reasonable time (say three years), their union MUST be annulled, in order to protect marriage! It doesn’t matter whether that couple chooses to selfishly postpone childrearing, or whether medical conditions prevent them from procreating. In either case, they fail to accomplish the purpose of marriage, and MUST be denied the legal and social benefits of that condition.

Now, I realize that such demands must come as a shock to heterosexuals, who have “always” felt entitled to the benefits of marriage. Still, the childless must take a stand for the wellbeing of society and its children by choosing not to live the “married without children” lifestyle and by supporting efforts to ban childless marriage. After all, childless marriage violates the entire PURPOSE of marriage, thus marriage must be protected from such a condition!Yes, it’s a difficult choice that will require extreme selflessness, but it’s a choice the childless can make. They’re not alone in making difficult decisions to sacrifice personal desires for the good of others. It’s about choice, the choice to love others above ourselves!

Comment # 1 left by Nick Literski on February 24th, 2007

Just to add a bit of clarification to Nick’s comments (if he doesn’t mind):

The Mormon can always respond that while some people can’t have children in this life, they can in the next. This would seem to undermine Nick’s comment, but it doesn’t.

What is legal or not should only concern THIS life. We can’t allow excepts for some people based on what is supposed to happen to them in some other life. It is for this reason that Mormons have a very convenient distinction between Celestial marriage (which they can without from gays as much as they want) and State sponsored marriage which they have no right to deny based on what their religion says.

Thus, Nick’s comments might not work very well against Mormon doctrine or thought, but it does work very well against state laws.

Comment # 2 left by Jeff G on February 24th, 2007

David,

If you are really serious about your position, then why spend so much time and effort fighting same sex marriage and, instead, lead the campaign against fornication, adultery, out of wedlock births, and divorce. These four things have destroyed the lives of children more than millions of gay marriages could ever accomplish.

I know that you will make all types of excuses for not criminalizing these activities but they need to be. If a woman has a child out of wedlock, the child should be taken from her and she should immediately be sterilized. If a man commits adultery and then divorces the mother of his children, he should be locked up for life and barred from ever marrying again.

Gays and lesbians are not a threat to children or to marriage. Straights have totally messed up this sacred institution and rather than take responsibility they seek to make gay marriage the scape goat.

Comment # 3 left by Michael on February 24th, 2007

Nick, I never said the sole purpose of marriage was to have children. Either you misread what I wrote, or you’re being intentionally misleading to distract readers from the truth of my assertion.

The point I was making about same-sex marriage is that if gays are given the exact same rights of marriage as heterosexual couples have, then they will have the same right to seek to have and raise children. As a society, we should not give gay couples the right to have and raise children for the reasons I stated–namely that the best situation for children is to be raised by a loving, married man and woman.

Please don’t put words in my mouth by arguing that I’m saying all non-childbearing marriages must be made illegal. That’s absolute nonsense. It’s quite clear from the Church’s statement, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, that sometimes the challenges of life prevent the ideal situation. It’s also quite clear from many talks by Church leaders that we need to love and support those who can’t have children or who get divorced or lose a spouse to death and have to raise children alone. But those exceptions do not disprove the rule that children do best in homes with a mother and a father.

Based on my experience with gay friends and family, this argument against gay marriage is the hardest for homosexuals to deal with. There is no good answer to it, so militant gays will use counter-arguments that rely on political correctness, or they’ll distract the reader with another argument, or they’ll misconstrue the motives of the person arguing against gay marriage. It’s the classic calling good evil and evil good ploy.

If we as individuals care about our children more than ourselves, then we won’t choose to bring a child into this world unless that child will have a father and mother. For those who already have children, circumstances beyond their control sometimes result in single-parent households (e.g., death of a spouse, abusive parent, etc.). We need to reach out in love to assist those parents with the difficult task of continuing to raise their children. Of course, we won’t take their children away. That’s not what I’m arguing. But for those people who are contemplating having children, they should not choose to raise a child if they are not married to someone of the opposite sex. That goes for gay couples and single individuals alike.

Think first of the children.

Comment # 4 left by david on February 24th, 2007

Brave David.

In general terms I tend to agree with you. The wording of the post seems a bit absolute if the audience is the general public and not just members of the church.

I admit that I do not quite understand why gays would desire to be legally married outside of the possible financial advantages that might bring. Are they not going against most religious and social conventions as-is? Why bother with a formal marriage?

Comment # 5 left by Eric Nielson on February 24th, 2007

Michael, you’re absolutely right that we need to spend time fighting “fornication, adultery, out of wedlock births, and divorce” for the sake of the children of the world. No arguments there; in fact, I may act on your recommendation and write about those actions in a future post. I have divorced parents, so I know the devastating effect that has on children. I also have a sibling who sired children out of wedlock who are now suffering from the consequences of his actions, so I’ve seen up close how bad that can be.

However, the focus of this post was on the fact that homosexuals can choose how to act and should choose wisely when their choice affects children. The fact that I don’t give equal time in this post to other threats to children doesn’t disprove my argument.

Comment # 6 left by david on February 24th, 2007

My main qualm with the post itself is that it draws far too strong of a line between nature and nurture. After all, who says that the rest of us are born straight in the strongest sense of the term? I would also like to point out that nurture isn’t much more of a choice than is nature. When, exactly, is this “choice” supposed to happen? Furthermore, where in the world is the ability to rise above both nature and nurture supposed to come from?

While the post doesn’t directly address what I’m about to say, I do think that it is relevant nonetheless. I have a serious issue with the all-purpose remedy of just being more righteous. Having emotional problems on your mission? Just work harder like a righteous missionary, it will help. Feeling gay impulses? Just pray harder and push those feelings down further like the righteous do. Having serious doubts about the church? Just keep following your leaders and being righteous and the faith will eventually come. Isn’t it at least possible that being more righteous might not only not be the solution, but might only compound the problem?

Comment # 7 left by Jeff G on February 24th, 2007

Regarding Nick and Michael’s comments: Using the most extreme example one can think of against an argument doesn’t help one’s case at all. In fact, it harms your point of view. Usually when extreme and ludicrous scenarios are used, it means that there are no logical, valid reasons to give to support one’s position again the original argument.

Comment # 8 left by Kathryn T. on February 24th, 2007

Hi David, here is a website for you and those who think like you:

http://www.wa-doma.org/

Comment # 9 left by Phouchg on February 24th, 2007

BTW, my wife and I are celebrating our 4th anniversary in June. I got a vasectomy a year after we were married. We are both 39 and we will not have children. Should we be married??

Comment # 10 left by Phouchg on February 24th, 2007

PPS - What on earth does Elder Oaks know about “homosexual attraction”. Unless he is out cruising, where does he get his knowledge about the gay community??

Comment # 11 left by Phouchg on February 24th, 2007

Phouchg, you’ve completely misconstrued my point just as Nick did. I never said the sole reason for marriage is to have children. Please read my response to him above.

Regarding your question about Elder Oaks, let me make two points. First, I can’t say for sure where he gained his knowledge about the gay community, but I’m confident that he has spoken with many gay and lesbian people who have been “out cruising” and are struggling with same gender attraction. Does a parent or teacher or pastor have to abuse drugs to be qualified to tell a teenager they’re dangerous, will cause suffering, and should be avoided? By your flawed reasoning, yes. Clearly that’s nonsense.

Second, and more importantly, he’s a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Jesus Christ understands all of our suffering in a miraculous way even if he didn’t experience the exact same suffering directly himself during his mortality. As a representative of the Lord, I’m certain Elder Oaks can speak authoritatively on this topic.

Comment # 12 left by david on February 24th, 2007

Brave indeed. A tough topic to approach.

I tend to agree with the points of this post, although I would add that the power of choice that Elder Oaks discussed is not just about the children. I do agree with the principle that children have rights to be born to a mother and a father (would that we could do more about the many, many broken families in the world!). I would argue that a key purpose of encouraging gays to choose not to sexually live that lifestyle is for their own spiritual benefit, assuming the audience is members of the church (for whom I see this site basically existing). There is a lot at stake here, and it’s not just about the children.

Another thought in response to one of the comments above…just because there are a lot of problems with heterosexual marriage already doesn’t justify the legalization of gay marriage.

Isn’t it at least possible that being more righteous might not only not be the solution, but might only compound the problem?

I think I understand what you are saying…might I share a thought or two? I think a lot depends on how one approaches problems. If we are approaching “being more righteous” in a checklist sort of a way, or a “I’m going to do this to fix my problems” approach, it could contribute to the problem. If righteousness is a remedy, then we could set ourselves up for disappointment, because righteousness doesn’t guarantee that our problems will be taken away. If we are doing the things we are supposed to be doing for the love of the Lord fundamentally as our purpose, then the outcome won’t matter. We don’t choose to be righteous just so our problems can be fixed. We don’t fast and pray and read and go to church and all of that so that all our trials will be taken away or changed. We do these things so WE can be changed and can be able to deal with whatever problems might come our way. Some trials won’t be taken away, as hard as that is. Some might. Regardless, we choose to obey and exercise agency to draw closer to the Lord and to grow spiritually. If we do these things with conditions (”Lord, I’ll do this if you take this cross away, but if you don’t, I quit”) then, yes, doing “righteous” things can add to the problem because we might end up feeling robbed somehow if our trials aren’t taken away.

This, for me, is one of those issues that boils down to what David said about Elder Oaks. There are plenty of arguments on both sides of this issue, but when the prophets take a stand as they have, for me the debate is over. Prophets aren’t supposed to just tell us what we want to hear…they are here to tell us what we need to hear, and also sometimes what won’t necessarily make complete sense to us. I don’t take this position out of hatred or bigotry or desire to oppress or make others’ lives miserable. But I believe our prophets when they say this is an issue we can’t back down on.

Comment # 13 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

David,

You tell us to “think of the children.” OK. If I’m a child with two loving parents and these parents are gay, I imagine I’m just glad that I have loving parents. That gay marriage “harms children” as you seem to be claiming is for you to prove. I would simply stick with “God said gay marriage is wrong” if that’s what you believe rather than constructing arguments like this. Of course, if you’re looking for some state sanction of your belief then this won’t do either, so I understand the impulse.

The enemies of marriage are not the gay couples who want to add some solemnity and commitment to the relationship they are already legally enjoying, but the Las Vegas wedding chapels and the reality shows that cheapen marriage. To say nothing of the millions of crummy hetero marriages out there.

Comment # 14 left by Ronan on February 25th, 2007

To clarify:

I am not criticizing the religious impulse to morally prohibit certain things. This is, of course, the prerogative of the church. But if we want that impulse to be legally binding on other people, we need arguments that prove that there is a danger in the first place. For me, “think of the children” is simply not such an argument.

Comment # 15 left by Ronan on February 25th, 2007

Ronan,
I don’t know that it’s “constructing” an argument to take a statement directly from the Proclamation and discuss it in this context. I do think that there is more to the issue of gay marriage than just the children, but I don’t think we can ignore that aspect of the issue, either, given what our prophets have declared.

p.s. when I said: “but when the prophets take a stand as they have, for me the debate is over” — I didn’t mean to imply that I haven’t given this issue a lot of thought and consideration as well. I have spent the past several years studying and discussing and considering this issue. I started the process more on faith (when we were asked to support prop 22 in CA) and have since become more convinced of the rightness of this position… even as I truly have sympathy for those people who simply want ratifcation of their relationships. I understand that desire, but I cannot support it because I think the issue is bigger than anyone’s rights and anyone’s particular situation. This is part of why the argument that crummy hetero marriages and other things that undermine marriage doesn’t fly with me. These things are all true, but that doesn’t change the problems that gay marriage can and will present. What undermines God’s plan won’t have positive results in the end for the things that matter most in the long run. Of course, that means that anything that undermines marriage puts us in harm’s way. There is more that challenges God’s plan than SSM, to be sure. But let’s not pretend that those realities cancel out the issue of SSM and its inconsistency with God’s plan.

Comment # 16 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

Give up the bull shit.

Christ was all inclusive!

Comment # 17 left by Brian Patteson on February 25th, 2007

David,

Your post seems to be primarily about the possible harm of gay parenting. Gay people have, of course, been parenting for millennia, but the objection to SSM seems to be a fear that even more gay people will attempt to parent if they are allowed to legally marry. And it is probably true. After all, same-sex marriage will help to create more stable relationships for an entire segment of the population that previously has had little societal incouragement to form committed couplings. So, if SSM is available, and as more gay people thereby settle into long-term commitments, it is entirely probable that many may choose to raise children.

Likewise, gay single people and gay couples have been permitted to adopt for a number of years in many countries and states. But now that SSM has become a prominent cultural issue, it is interesting to observe governments rushing to legislate against gay adoption (but not against single-person adoption). When Mary Cheney announced her pregnancy, social conservatives loudly decried the tragedy of a child being born to parents who lacked the ideal gender differentiation. Yet no one is proposing legislation to ban IVF, even though single women have been utilizing this technology for years.

No, the problem for gay couples is that society thinks homosexuals cannot make adequate parents.


“should a boy be raised by gay parents, he will not be able to learn directly how a loving husband is to love and care for a wife.”

Perhaps he may not learn the nuances of gender roles (directly from his parents), but I think he will do just fine with the example of two loving and caring parents, regardless of gender differences. I just think this whole “gender model” argument is a weak reason to deny same-sex families legal rights.

“Furthermore, without a father, he will not learn first-hand how a father should interact with, discipline, communicate with, and love his children.”

Is this difference between how the two sexes discipline, communicate and love their children really so distinct and critical that governments need to legislate against gay parenting? Is the paramount aspect of good parenting about demonstrating gender roles?

The Family: A Proclamation to the World reads, “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

You may focus on the gender of the father and mother in the above sentence, but consider what follows: “who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” Legal marriage will help provide that opportunity for the children of gay parents.

“If a boy grows up in a household where the mother has by choice not married a man, the message to that boy is that fathers are optional. This will tend to decrease that boy’s commitment to his own wife and children in the future when life gets difficult.”

Except in the case of SSM the message being sent to the children is exactly the opposite–marriage *isn’t* optional. Marriage for gay parents encourages their children to likewise marry. The same-sex parents *are* providing examples to their children, and allowing these couples to legally wed helps send the right message to the children–that marriage is good. Why would gay people want to teach their children to desire “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” when they could provide an example of marriage.

If this is all about the children, for heaven’s sake, we should clearly encourage same-sex couples to marry.

Comment # 18 left by Steven B on February 25th, 2007

One more thought.

Parenting is a wonderful, challenging, joyous, life enhancing enterprise that helps prepare us for eternity. I believe our Heavenly Father would want all of his children, including those with a homosexual orientation, to have an opportunity to be a parent.

Comment # 19 left by Steven B on February 25th, 2007

David,

I was struck by a wedding commercial that contained the line:

“You don’t choose who you fall in love with.”

This reminded me of one of my favorite movies, “Fiddler on the Roof” that examines the extension of the Jewish Ghetto marriage tradition to include “love marriage” and marriage to non-Jews.

If one were to discern “God’s plan” for same-sex marriage, just as one would discern “God’s plan” for gay Purim, one should ask the people who have “been there”, not folks who coach a losing game from the sidelines because they cling hopelessly to an archaic playbook.

Comment # 20 left by Jonathan on February 25th, 2007

I believe our Heavenly Father would want all of his children, including those with a homosexual orientation, to have an opportunity to be a parent.

You are entitled to your opinion, but Heavenly Father has told His prophets otherwise.

If one were to discern “God’s plan” for same-sex marriage, just as one would discern “God’s plan” for gay Purim, one should ask the people who have “been there”, not folks who coach a losing game from the sidelines because they cling hopelessly to an archaic playbook.

God’s plan is not something we can vote on. We can’t ask random people what they think things should be like. God reveals truths about His plan through His mouthpieces.

Comment # 21 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

Michelle,

You lean on “God’s plan” as your trump card, which, as a believing Mormon, is a perfectly sensible card to play. But what is and what isn’t God’s plan is, of course, a religious question and we cannot legislate for others based solely on our religious impulses. I am not talking about the moral rightness or wrongness of gay marriage; I am talking about whether the state chooses to legislate on this matter. As a religious minority (a Mormon in Catholic Austria) I do not want the state to make laws based on religious conviction.

So to legislate on gay marriage for a country of Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics, I would want a strong secular argument backing it up. In my opinion, neither you nor David have produced such an argument.

Of course, the church can govern its own members as it pleases. But I do not want the state to ban gay marriage because “God says so” because one day someone might ban what I do as a Mormon because “God says so.”

There’s a reason the US is set-up the way it is, and that is a good thing.

So, please, if you want a secular law on this, please provide a secular argument.

Gay marriage “harms” marriage? How? When? Where? Why?

Comment # 22 left by Ronan on February 25th, 2007

Here’s the point that the proponents of gay marriage continue to ignore and can’t dispute: All other things being equal, it’s better for a child to have both a loving and able mother and a father.

And as Michelle stated, just because some children are raised in homes where their fathers and mothers are not good parents doesn’t mean we should allow anyone to raise children. Rather, it means we as a society need to do a better job at preparing people to become good parents and helping current parents to better raise their children.

Men and women are biologically different. That’s not a religious position. It’s a secular statement of fact. Because of biological differences, a second father cannot perfectly replace a mother as a parent, all other things being equal. Conversely, a second mother cannot perfectly replace a father as a parent.

Ronan, if wanting to guarantee that a little child has a mother is not “secular” enough for you, then no amount of secular reasoning will be. The same goes for wanting to guarantee that a child has a father. Take this, for example. Without a doubt, when a little girl entering puberty has her first period, the best option for teaching her about it and walking her through it is a mother.

I respect the powerful desire that homosexual people have to bear and raise children. Parenting provides an immense source of joy and fulfillment. But that can never be more important than the needs of the child. Single or gay parents who choose to bring a child into this world or adopt one at a very young age are knowingly giving that child a disadvantage in life by preventing that child from having either a mother or father.

Back to the Proclamation, if you sustain the leaders of the Church as called of God, then you see the Lord’s position on this is quite clear.

Comment # 23 left by david on February 25th, 2007

Let me add that the main point of this post is that homosexuals have a choice. They can choose to not act on their desires and rather to live in accordance with the commandments of God. The fact that many gays are born with homosexual desires doesn’t justify acting on them.

Comment # 24 left by david on February 25th, 2007

Michelle says:

God reveals truths about His plan through His mouthpieces.

Maybe we are God’s mouthpieces? It sure feels that way because, as David says, we could choose to act differently than the way we are born. Is God asking us to reveal the truth of our existence?

David says:

All other things being equal, it’s better for a child to have both a loving and able mother and a father.

My David responds http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=338

Comment # 25 left by Jonathan on February 25th, 2007

Interestingly, for priesthood meeting today, we were asked to read Elder Oaks’ talk from the October 2006 General Conference. I just finished it. Some of what he said was directly on point to this discussion. I quote that portion here for whomever may benefit:

A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

“I knew it would be difficult,” he wrote, “but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through.” His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

“It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. . . . I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude.”

He continues: “Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle . . . , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. . . . There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters” (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006).

Comment # 26 left by david on February 25th, 2007

David,

If you want to lobby for a law you cannot use the Proclamation as your support! That’s all I’m saying. State reliance on the opinions of powerful religious lobbies is exactly what allows our church to be put on an anti-cult list in Belgium and watched by the police. Because it can effect me in real and difficult ways (Mormon kids under state care in Belgium not being allowed to attend our church, for example) I do not want religious dicta influencing laws, even when they are to my benefit.

As for the argument that all other things being equal a child deserves to be raised by a father and a mother…

Well, here’s the thing. That’s my feeling also, but tell me, should single people be allowed to adopt? If so, you’re just revealing your prejudice again. Which is not to say that it isn’t a divine prejudice (a matter of faith, one that you and I are free to hold if we desire) but if that’s your only argument, it’s not good enough. That is, if we’re talking about enacting secular laws.

Comment # 27 left by Ronan on February 25th, 2007

Ronan,
Now I understand on what point you are arguing against the arguments. I thought the discussion here was more from our religion’s point of view…that’s where I was coming from.

My head’s fuzzy right now (very sick this week), but off the top of my head I can tell some of the “secular” concerns I have about legislating gay marriage. Gays talk of rights. But what they won’t admit is that if their rights are considered, others’ will likely be limited. This is already happening in Massachusetts. I’m sure you have heard that parents (!!) are losing their rights in terms of getting involved in the schools and having a say in what their children are or are not exposed to in school. Because the law has given gays “rights” it is no longer OK to oppose teaching kindergartners about homosexuality.

Experts on both sides of the issue have discussed the potential effects legalized gay marriage could have on religious rights and free speech rights as well. What I see legal gay marriage doing is protecting the rights of the few while potentially disrupting the rights of the many. That doesn’t seem, well, right to me.

As for enacting secular laws, we must not forget the principles of democracy. If the majority of people choose to enact a law, even if it seems to have religious underpinnings, the voice of the people can be allowed to choose those laws. But governments have had an intereste in marriage for centuries. There are reasons we have different filing statuses, right? Societies have wanted to protect and reward marriage because it has formed a stable foundation for societies, provided the most ideal setting for the propagation of the race (governments in Asia, for example, are finding ways to reward and encourage more procreation now that their numbers are dwindling!!). AND, the majority of the people still are against gay marriage. I realize we may reach a time when that won’t be the case, but until then, arguing against laws prohibiting gay marriage, which reach beyond the boundaries of our religion alone, do not seem viable because of the principles of democracy alone.

(Most laws have some religious or ethical underpinning. We can’t deny that, either.)

Also, why is it that those who want to approach this in a secular way will not see the violation of secular principles established in the Constitution…judges creating laws and statutes that go against what the people want, for example? To me, it underscores the problematic nature and risk of this issue if those who support it are willing to support processes that fly in the face of the principles of democracy and balance of power. Again, the rights of the few are taking precedence over the voice of the many. Until a clear majority of people in America no longer want to protect traditional marriage, I think we as members of the church have every right to push for laws that the majority support without having to even have so-called “secular reasoning” for that choice.

Incidentally, I don’t like the fact that single people can adopt, but there is more to this issue. Gay marriage wants to redefine and recreate and overhaul something that has been the foundation of societies since the beginning of time. This isn’t just about religion (although clearly for us there are those strong underpinnings). As I said before, governments have been involved in marriages for centuries because they benefit societies as a whole.

Comment # 28 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

I thought the discussion here was more from our religion’s point of view.

OK, well, then I don’t have much to add because I understand “our religion’s point of view” pretty well! But if you use secular arguments to support religious dogma (as you must if you want to enact laws), be careful not to set-up straw men such as this:

“Until a clear majority of people in America no longer want to protect traditional marriage.”

You are saying that someone who supports gay marriage does not support marriage — a very strong accusation. But Michelle, it is for you to prove that gay marriage undermines traditional marriage. I know many conservatives who believe that gay marriage supports marriage precisely because it heralds and honours the conservative commitment inherent in matrimony. And yes, I know that LDS leaders have made their opinion clear, but if you want the US Congress to enact laws you need something more than this.

And don’t always trust the majority. There was a time when the majority of people in America supported slavery, for example. Was it only right to attack slavery once it wasn’t popular anymore?

Comment # 29 left by Ronan on February 25th, 2007

“The fact that many gays are born with homosexual desires doesn’t justify acting on them.”

Or for that matter, the fact that God placed shellfish in the ocean doesn’t justify those inclined to eat them.

Sorry for using such a wornout comparison as the shellfish argument. But it does help illustrate the fact that many modern people fail to find a rational reason to continue to maintain the ancient religious and cultural taboo against homosexual activity. In fact, being open and honest about one’s sexuality, for many, is not only logical, but is the conscientious “choice.”

Comment # 30 left by Steven B on February 25th, 2007

David,
You made it clear in your original post that your opposition to gay marriage is “all about the children.” While you may not have specifically stated that childrearing is the sole/primary purpose of marriage, I think it’s fair to say that you strongly implied such a viewpoint.

If I understand your reply correctly, you suggest that gay marriage should be illegal, because legalizing gay marriage would encourage childrearing by committed gay partners. Again, if I understand correctly, you base this objection on the Proclamation on the Family’s allegation that children “deserve” or are best served by, married, opposite-gender parents. Do you really base this conclusion on anything other than the Proclamation? Yes, there are studies which conclude this to be the “best” or “ideal” situation. There are other studies, however, which indicate that children raised by committed same-gender parents grow up just as well-adjusted and successful—and no more likely to be gay themselves, than children raised by heterosexual parents. The children most likely to have legal and developmental problems are, in fact, those raised by single parents of either gender.

To be honest, David, I think you are avoiding an allegation that is actually necessary for your proposition to be valid. If you truly wish to argue that the childrearing “ideal” of a heterosexual married couple basically mandates that gay marriage be illegal, you have to likewise condemn the raising of children in other “non-ideal” family structures. Every “weakness” you claim would affect the children of a gay couple can likewise apply to children of single parents. A child raised by a single woman may not have a strong male role model. A child raised by a single man may not have a strong female role model.

In short, while your argument may be somewhat novel, it’s disingenuous. Suppose you were asked to rank the following family structures for child-rearing, in order of preference:

(a) Two opposite-sex parents, married to one another.
(b) Two opposite-sex parents, cohabiting but not married.
(c) A single mother.
(d) A single father.
(e) Two parents of the same sex, in a committed relationship (who would be married if it was legal for them to do so).

If your argument is entirely genuine, David, you should be ranking choice “a” as first, and all others as equal. From reading your posts in this thread, however, I have reason to strongly suspect that your rankings would be something along the lines of “a, b, c, d, e.” In other words, I’m willing to bet that you see a child being raised by a single mother as “better off” than a child being raised by two committed same-sex parents. This is where your argument fails in both logic and credibility.

I realize you claim you would not want to strip children from their existing single parents or gay couple parents. Still, your argument is specious when one takes into consideration that not every gay marriage (or every straight marriage, for that matter) leads to childrearing. In fact, your argument is really one against allowing gay couples to parent. The issue of whether gay couples can marry is entirely distinct.

Comment # 31 left by Nick Literski on February 25th, 2007

Eric Nielson wrote:
“I admit that I do not quite understand why gays would desire to be legally married outside of the possible financial advantages that might bring. Are they not going against most religious and social conventions as-is? Why bother with a formal marriage?”

Eric, I appreciate the candor of your question. While I can’t answer for every gay man, perhaps I can help clarify some of the issues for you. First, there are over 400 legal rights and responsibilities which apply to marriage in the United States. Yes, some of these are financial, such as inheritance, taxation, pensions, etc. The rights of marriage go far beyond finances, however. If your spouse was critically ill and hospitalized, you could be at her side. Many gay couples, despite being in decades-long comitted relationships, have been denied even this simple (but important) privilege. It is difficult to argue that a straight couple who have been married two weeks are entitled to more legal protections than a gay couple who have been in a committed relationship for twenty years or more. The only place in the United States that two gay men can enter into a legally-recognized marriage is Massachussetts, and even then, other states will refuse to recognize the marriage. As a Seattle resident, I could drive three hours to Vancouver, British Columbia, and marry my partner, but once I returned to the United States, I would gain none of the attendant rights.

You ask why (besides these rights?) gay couples would want to bother with a formal ceremony, etc. That’s a fair question. Not all gay couples want to marry, just as not all straight couples want to marry. There are straight couples who consider a marriage to be simply a scrap of paper, that has no effect on their existing committment. There are gay couples who feel the same.

Many straight couples, of course, feel very differently. For them, marriage is (among other things) making a public, recognized committment to one another, and to the love that they share. These couples don’t choose merely to live together–they want to “make it official,” so to speak. There are many gay couples who feel the same way. They value the love and committment which exists between them, and they want to recognize that in a public, formal, legal way.

Sometimes, it seems that many people immediately think of sexual acts when they hear about homosexuality, and their judgment is affected by this. Those who actually are acquainted with committed gay couples generally come to understand that far more is involved. The love between two gay men is no less real than the love between two straight persons of opposite genders. For many, whether gay or straight, the desire to marry is about that love, more than anything else.

Comment # 32 left by Nick Literski on February 25th, 2007

Kathryn T. wrote:
“Using the most extreme example one can think of against an argument doesn’t help one’s case at all. In fact, it harms your point of view. Usually when extreme and ludicrous scenarios are used, it means that there are no logical, valid reasons to give to support one’s position again the original argument.”

I understand your point, Kathryn. My original post was not about “using the most extreme example” I could think of. Rather, it was a matter of trying to illustrate where a certain line of argument against gay marriage logically ends. Here in Washington, the state supreme court recently ruled against gay marriage, relying primarily upon their position that procreation and childrearing was the primary/chief purpose of marriage. According to their reasoning, since gay couples can’t engage in unaided procreation, they should not be entitled to marriage. While this is really a fairly common argument used against gay marriage, it is also patently absurd. If such “logic” is taken to its natural end, marriage must be prohibited to all but those who can have children together without intervention to aid the process. It frankly appeared to me that David was following the same basic argument (albeit from a point of childrearing ability, rather than reproduction), and I responded by showing where such an argument would logically end.

I hope this clarifies for you where I was coming from.

Comment # 33 left by Nick Literski on February 25th, 2007

David says:

“Gays talk of rights. But what they won’t admit is that if their rights are considered, others’ will likely be limited. This is already happening in Massachusetts. I’m sure you have heard that parents (!!) are losing their rights in terms of getting involved in the schools and having a say in what their children are or are not exposed to in school.”

What are those “parental rights” that are being limited? The “right” to teach children that the child of the same-sex couple is being raised by an “inherently disordered” (that’s a Catholic term) family? Parents retain that right but they may not involve the schools as a proxy for their prejudice. It’s always been this way. The schools must treat all families with respect. We have the same issue in VA and VA just passed an anti-gay Constitutional Amendment.

Eric asks:

“I admit that I do not quite understand why gays would desire to be legally married outside of the possible financial advantages that might bring. Are they not going against most religious and social conventions as-is? Why bother with a formal marriage?”

“Gays” [gay people] are the same as you and marry for the same reasons. Many religious traditions, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, progressive Protestant churches (e.g. the UCC, Episcopal, Lutheran, Protestant and some Baptist) and Unitarian Universalists all perform same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages are legal in Canada, Belgium, Spain, South Africa and the Netherlands. They are illegal in North Korea and Iran. Neither of the above lists is definitive.

Comment # 34 left by Jonathan on February 25th, 2007

You are saying that someone who supports gay marriage does not support marriage — a very strong accusation. But Michelle, it is for you to prove that gay marriage undermines traditional marriage. …
I know many conservatives who believe that gay marriage supports marriage precisely because it heralds and honours the conservative commitment inherent in matrimony.

I said “traditional marriage,” Ronan. Please don’t start twisting my words around. Or maybe I should define what I mean just to be clear. Traditional marriage in my comment = marriage between a man and a woman. In my point of view, redefining marriage (i.e., making gay marriage legal) is not protecting traditional marriage.

I thought I had given you a few secular concerns I have, but you haven’t responded. Also, you have not responded to the fact that the law already protects and rewards marriage because by nature, marriage is beneficial to society. That in and of itself is a sort of “proof” that marriage (as it is defined) is legally worth protecting, because in a sense it’s already legally being protected, or at least rewarded (which, in a sense, protects it).

I tend to think that maybe those who support gay marriage should be doing the proving anyway. How would this benefit society? What about the rights that are already being threatened as a result of movement toward SSM? Can you prove that it won’t be harmful to marriage, children, families, society, parents, religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc.?

p.s. Your slavery comment makes me wonder how you might really feel about this. I brought up the majority comment because I believe this isn’t like slavery. You wanted secular points, and I gave you yet another one. The majority of people support protecting traditional marriage. In a democracy, laws can protect what the majority feel, right? You know as well as I do that you can’t completely strip belief about right and wrong from law. Every law makes a statement about right and wrong.

Comment # 35 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

David,
I would like to comment in regard to your defense of Dallin Oaks’ understanding of homosexuality. First, please understand that I respect the faith behind your suggestion that his ordination confers upon him particular insight and enlightenment. As I’m sure you recognize, this is a matter of faith, and not an all-conclusive “trump card” which overrules all other viewpoints.

I’m sure you are aware that the calling of a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is not to establish the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The only person who can do that is the president of said church. A careful perusal of LDS doctrinal writings will demonstrate that statements of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve, while important and generally very insightful, are only considered authoritative for the church when that Quorum speaks as a united body (much like they did in the Proclamation on the Family and/or the Testimony of the Twelve Apostles given in 2000).

I have had the privilege of meeting Dallin Oaks. I believe he is a good man, and that he prayerfully, earnestly strives to represent Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost. I have also had the privilege of meeting other members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and feel basically the same about them (I’m particularly an admirer of Jeffrey R. Holland, in fact).

A careful reading of material coming from the general authorities (i.e. not just picking out one speaker’s words) demonstrates a certain humility. They recognize that they don’t have all the answers on this subject. At this time, they proceed on what light they have received, and they teach accordingly. They do not pretend to be infalliable, though they recognize (humbly, in most cases) that they receive guidance beyond their own abilities.

If you were to take every statement of an LDS apostle, or even every statement of an LDS president, as the complete and final answer (as some in this thread appear to be doing), you would soon find yourself perplexed by contradictions. Joseph Fielding Smith once said that men would never reach the moon. He based that statement on his understanding, at that point in time, of scripture. He was, shall we say, less than complete in that understanding. Did this make him less of a prophet? No. It made him what all the general authorities are—men who are trying to do their best to guide the church, according to the light they have received. Their ordination does not automatically give them the full light and understanding posessed by Jesus Christ.

You suggest that Elder Oaks “has spoken with many gay and lesbian people who have been ‘out cruising’ and are struggling with same gender attraction.” I suspect you are right. I wonder, however, how many gay and lesbian people he has spoken with on the topic, who are *not* struggling? If he only speaks to those who are troubled by their sexual orientation, he may draw a conclusion, as you seem to, that being gay is “dangerous, will cause suffering, and should be avoided.” As a gay man (who tried for many years to be something else), I simply can’t agree with that conclusion. Rather, I found that trying to live as a straight person was “dangerous, caused suffering, and should be avoided.”

Comment # 36 left by Nick Literski on February 25th, 2007

(There are so many comments, I can’t keep up….)

Ronan, you asked, “should single people be allowed to adopt?” That’s a complicated question. I think there are times where adoption by a single parent might be better than a child not being adopted at all (e.g., a special needs child who is a ward of the state). Therefore, I would probably not support a 100% ban on adoption by single people or by gays for that matter. However, I go back to the simple, incontrovertible point that children deserve both a mother and a father. Based on that principle, I would oppose single people adopting if a child has the option of being adopted by a married, heterosexual couple.

Comment # 37 left by david on February 25th, 2007

Stephen B said:

In fact, being open and honest about one’s sexuality, for many, is not only logical, but is the conscientious “choice.”

You’re wrong. We control our sexuality; it doesn’t control us. Following your argument, most men would feel justified looking at pornography or cheating on their wife. Even worse, pedophiles would feel justified preying on children. Because something might be true doesn’t make it right.

Comment # 38 left by david on February 25th, 2007

Nick said:

You made it clear in your original post that your opposition to gay marriage is “all about the children.” While you may not have specifically stated that childrearing is the sole/primary purpose of marriage, I think it’s fair to say that you strongly implied such a viewpoint.

If my post implied that childrearing is the sole purpose of marriage, I apologize. That is not my belief. And certainly, I don’t believe that people should not get married if they cannot have children.

Comment # 39 left by david on February 25th, 2007

Nick said:

If your argument is entirely genuine, David, you should be ranking choice “a” as first, and all others as equal.

That’s right. As I stated before, and very simply, children deserve to be raised by a loving, married father and mother. That’s one reason why I oppose legalizing gay marriage. I recognize (as do Church leaders) that sometimes circumstances prevent this from happening. If a spouse dies, the living spouse can’t control that, so extended family, the Church, and the community should step in to help out as much as possible. The Lord understands this, but where people have a choice, they should choose a course of action that’ s in the best interest of the child. By that token, if a teen makes a bad decision and gets pregnant, I would encourage her to give up her baby for adoption.

Comment # 40 left by david on February 25th, 2007

Nick, Elder Oaks is teaching the principle of agency, which is scriptural truth. We are to act and not be acted upon. That principle applies to all of us. Elder Oaks doesn’t really need to talk to gay people about this, because the principle of agency applies to all of us regardless of our trials, predispositions, sexuality, or whatever else might influence our desires and choices. There aren’t exceptions for keeping God’s laws, unless someone has no consciousness of right or wrong, which obviously doesn’t include homosexuals. Church leaders have come out in a Proclamation and declared what marriage is, what God’s law of chastity is. Agency is given to see if we will obey God’s laws. There is no wiggle room with this issue doctrinally.

I say this not to push you away, but just to push back. You can’t water down the doctrine by bringing up random things like prophetic opinion about men going to the moon that have no bearing on God’s plan. Homosexuality challenges the core of God’s plan and our leaders have clearly and consistently addressed this. Agency, which is what Elder Oaks was teaching about, is also central to the plan.

Comment # 41 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

Spot on, Michelle.

Comment # 42 left by david on February 25th, 2007

Interesting that a church that has “non-traditional marriage” as one of its core beliefs (D&C 132) is so opposed to another form of “non-traditional” marriage.

It is obvious to me that the reason the church and its leaders fear SSM (aside from their antediluvian homophobia) is the fear of that lovely “slippery slope” that would pave the way for polygamy to be legal. And the church certainly does not want to open that can of worms…

Comment # 43 left by Phouchg on February 25th, 2007

Interesting that a church that has “non-traditional marriage” as one of its core beliefs (D&C 132) is so opposed to another form of “non-traditional” marriage.

That was way too predictable a comeback, phouchg.

This has nothing to do with homophobia. It has to do with protecting God’s plan. The leaders do what they feel inspired to do, period. Polygamy has had its place in God’s plan at times, and has scriptural support. Homosexuality has neither.

Comment # 44 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

It’s as predictable as “think of the CHILDREN!” and “what about the CHILDREN?”

Activists on various and sundry issues, left, right liberal, conservative always seem to invoke the mantra of the CHILDREN.

That’s predictable.

Anyway, I am still trying to think how my wonderful marriage is supposedly damaged if my friends Dan and Ed get married…can’t find any reason so far…

Comment # 45 left by Phouchg on February 25th, 2007

phoucg, maybe it goes beyond that. maybe it damages society, God’s plan, individual people’s spirituality, and who knows what else.

Incidentally, David’s statement may have seemed predictable, but it also holds water. I’m wondering what you think is wrong with protecting the innocent…. Children don’t want to be different, and they deserve the best life has to offer. It’s not up to you or me to decide what that is. The children are God’s first.

Comment # 46 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

Michelle,
Not so long ago, men and women of different races were prohibited from marrying one another in the United States. This viewpoint was argued by many on the basis of the Bible. Additional arguments were invented, such as the claim that the offspring of such unions would be infertile, much like that of a mule and a horse. The possibility of inter-racial marriage was seen as a “threat” to the time-honored institution of marriage itself. During that time, LDS leaders preached the same opinion as if it was the word of God. Brigham Young went so far as to say that the penalty for making such a union was physical death. Spencer W. Kimball wrote against such a practice, but stated it more gently as counsel, rather than commandment. Through much of this time, Michelle, the majority of the American public also opposed such unions.

Times changed, of course. The United States Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting people from marrying persons of other races was a violation of constitutional rights. They did not “invent” a right, as so many right-wing pundits like to proclaim. They simply recognized, on the basis of greater understanding, that past practices were in error.

Most of us (a few bigots and extremists excepted, of course) would now agree that such a prohibition was wrong-headed. You certainly don’t see leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaching against such marriages today. Rather, men and women of different races are welcomed into LDS temples to receive sealing ordinances.

Now, was it the responsibility of these couples, who society later acknowledged were WRONGLY prevented from marriage, to “prove” that their marriages would not “harm” marriage and/or society? Was it their job to “prove” that their marraiges would benefit “marriage, children, families, society, parents, religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc.?” Let’s be honest for a moment. No amount of “proof” is going to change your opinion, which is based on the dictates of your religion. You have every right to consider the dictates of your faith as axiomatic and unquestionable. You do not, however, have a right to enforce the dictates of your faith upon those who are not of your faith. You cannot reasonably expect the dictates of your own religious faith to trump all other viewpoints on public policy issues which affect those not of your faith. For you to expect such a thing is no different than for a Muslim to expect that the United States adopt Islamic law.

Some seem to “forget” the divinely-inspired Constitution when it comes to the rights of others. Such people fail to understand that when they seek to impose their beliefs and will over the rights of others, they simultaneously threaten THEIR OWN freedoms. While it may be difficult for you to understand, I support–and would fight for–your right to hold and express your opinions, no matter how much I may disagree with them. When you consider it your “right” to prohibit the exercise of my rights, however, I feel duty-bound to oppose you. It’s frankly the only moral thing to do.

Comment # 47 left by Nick Literski on February 25th, 2007

phouchg (sorry I spelled your name wrong)…I should explain why I don’t think your previous comment holds water. 1) Because I don’t think you really understand why the church holds the position it does, if you think polygamy is at the root of the position. I am guessing that you don’t believe much in our doctrines at all (which is certainly your choice…but if that is the case then your interpretations aren’t going to have much credibility in my mind) and 2) if the church wanted only to “save face,” on any issue, it makes no sense to take a hard stand on a hot-button issue — a stand that draws ire from non-members and some members as well. No, clearly this can’t be about damage control.

Comment # 48 left by Michelle on February 25th, 2007

Michelle,
What about all the religious bigots who proclaim loudly against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claiming that you belong to a dangerous cult? There are, unfortunately, many of these people who would consider YOUR right to raise your children in the LDS faith to be a danger to innocent children. They might even claim that your children don’t want to be different from the children of christian protestants, and that you are victimizing them by teaching LDS doctrine to them.

Surely you would never want such people deciding how you exercise your rights as a parent. Just for a moment, can you look beyond yourself, and see that your religious opinions shouldn’t govern the marriage and childrearing decisions of others? Or will you rationalize such behavior, arguing that because you believe you have the 100% unquestionable true faith, it’s okay for YOU to do such a thing?

Comment # 49 left by Nick Literski on February 25th, 2007

phoucg and Nick, your efforts to discredit the principle that children deserve a mother and a father reveal the source of your attacks. You’re using the same old tricks that militant gays always use even though they do not counter the truth:

1. Discrediting the argument. phoucg says, “Activists on various and sundry issues, left, right liberal, conservative always seem to invoke the mantra of the CHILDREN.” This clearly doesn’t address the issue.

2. Distracting from the real issue. phoucg says, “Anyway, I am still trying to think how my wonderful marriage is supposedly damaged if my friends Dan and Ed get married….” Remember, the real issue is that a child deserves a mother and father, and to support gay marriage and all the rights it provides means that you support institutionalizing another means to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.

3. Political correctness (calling the defenders of children bigots). Nick’s efforts to invoke the bigotry argument not only pull out the PC card that has so effectively made people feel guilty for supporting what’s right, but they also distract from the real issue. What is best for the children? A mother and a father or two dads/moms?

4. Faulty (though appealing) logic. Nick offers other examples of bigotry that have wrongly denied certain people their rights. Defending traditional marriage is not bigotry just because other groups have wrongly suffered from bigotry in the past. Besides, at least with plural marriage, the children had a mother and a father. Of course, I oppose plural marriage because it is illegal.

Here’s what it all boils down to, and I can’t say it enough. Children deserve a mother and a father. By making any argument supporting gay marriage, you are saying that a child doesn’t need a mother or doesn’t need a father. In other words, you are arguing that a mother is unnecessary and replaceable. Further, you’re arguing that your desires to marry someone of the same gender trump the rights of the child to have a mother or a father.

Comment # 50 left by david on February 26th, 2007

Per this thread, i am more convinced that discussions of this type need to be done in two different parts: 1. whether homosexuality is sinful, and to what extent the impulse should be controlled, what counsel should be given to homosexuals, etc., and 2. whether homosexual marriage should be legal, what effect this would have on our culture, etc. When the two are conflated, the discussion will not make sense. It’s two easy to respond by simply avoiding real arguments and retreating to the other issue.

Anyways, I will say that I think the talk of ‘rights’ (both for children and homosexuals), is misplaced. As humans, we do not have a right to be born into a certain situation. We may consider some circumstances better, or provide us a better chance at success, but there is no right involved. Perhaps this is semantics, but it when it becomes too easy to simply label something as a right, then discussion of whether such a “right” is really even in the best interest of the child is stifled. For example, couldn’t a gay child be best raised by a gay parent or parents? What about a child whose parents weren’t gay, but early on starts to display homosexual tendencies or ‘the lifestyle’? I won’t disagree with the post’s assertion that, from what we know now, a traditional parent situation should get a presumption of being best; but two important caveats: 1. I could be convinced otherwise, since I don’t think this has been conclusively proven; 2. there should be exceptions to this general presumption (hence, DOMA amendments and outright bans are not wise).

Now, as to rights as they are claimed by homosexuals: I don’t believe there is a right to ‘marriage.’ Marriage is a state-created mechanism, although historically, and often today, tied to a religious ordinance. There is no “right.” However, there is a right to not have your own government discriminate against you (equal protection of the laws, due process, etc.). I think that the state court’s (most recently New Jersey, I think), that have said “there is no right to marriage, but there is equal protection, so the state must provide an alternative, like civil unions” have it correct. Besides, as someone earlier mentioned, once we acknowledge that homosexuality (as in being homosexual, not practicing homosexuality) is an inherent part of them, then encouraging monogamy and sexual responsibility within that framework is a good thing.

Comment # 51 left by APJ on February 26th, 2007

uh, just to clarify my last paragraph. I personally would be in favor of gay marriages, but I don’t think it is a right. I think it is something that society should decide on (democratically). But as to the benefits of marriage, I think homosexuals are entitled to that as tax-paying citizens, regardless of whether 51% (or more) disagree.

one more clarification, in my first paragraph, ‘two’ should obviously be ‘too.’

Comment # 52 left by APJ on February 26th, 2007

I think if a church does not wish to solemnize same-sex marriages, that is their right. No church should be forced to act contrary to its doctrine.

However, a church who wishes to insert itself into the civil arena and attempt to exert influence on what is a government duty, is overstepping its bounds.

Let’s take all the emotion out of the concept of marriage and look at it from a legal point of view. Marriage is a “merger” between two parties to create a new, legally recognized partnership. It is, in essence, a merger. By common consent, our society has empowered the civil government to recognize such mergers. Where does a church fit into this? If indeed there is to be freedom of religion, there also needs to be freedom from religion. Article of Faith 11 and all that.

I don’t see the problem with having marriage by civil authorities be the only legally recognized form of marriage. If churches then wish to solemnize marriages according to their own rites and ordinances, then that is fine also.

Look, guys, at some point in the future, SSM will be legal. Several countries where the LDS church is established already have SSM. I don’t see the church collapsing in spite of it.

Instead of expending energy fighting the winds of change, why don’t people spend that same energy determining how to deal with the evolution of society?

Comment # 53 left by Phouchg on February 26th, 2007

David, I don’t mean to ridicule you, but I can’t help but laugh. You read the word “bigot” in one of my posts, and immediately started flailing your arms around, crying that you were being falsely accused. Go back and read what I wrote. The only time I used the word “bigot” was in reference to certain religionists who would like to see YOUR religion done away with.

Comment # 54 left by Nick Literski on February 26th, 2007

While it may be difficult for you to understand, I support–and would fight for–your right to hold and express your opinions, no matter how much I may disagree with them.

Actually, Nick, if gay marriage passes, those rights will likely be threatened. This is part of my point. We can’t protect all rights here, because some of the rights will conflict.

Comment # 55 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

Michelle,

Your last comment illustrates my point above that using the term “rights” the way its being used here is misleading. “Rights” cannot conflict. In what sense do you have a “right” to receive preferential treatment from the government? In what sense do children have a “right” to be born into the presumptively best-case-scenario?

Hypothetically, though, let’s assume that “rights” could conflict. If so, to whose rights do we give precedence? Why? Also, why would your right to hold and express your opinion be threatened by legalizing gay marriage? I see no logical connection.

Comment # 56 left by APJ on February 26th, 2007

Interesting stuff all. Thanks to those who clarified some of the motives that gay people might have in being legally married.

Does not a lot of this come down to where we as a society decide to draw the line? What if a small group of people began demanding that they be allowed the right to be married to multiple young children? Whould we as a society allow that simply because a few expressed a desire to that type of sexual relationship? I would say no and venture to say others would as well.

Do we not as a society have a responsibility to define where to draw certain lines of acceptable behavior? And therefore it is mostly a matter of determining where such lines are drawn? And that where we feel these lines should be drawn are based primarity on our moral beliefs that usually have religion as it’s source?

Comment # 57 left by Eric Nielson on February 26th, 2007

Surely you would never want such people deciding how you exercise your rights as a parent.

And, Nick, if gay rights pass, it may likely be that I lose some rights as a religious parent and as someone who believes in traditional marriage. Anti-religion is still a sort of belief system, and I don’t want that being the dominant decision-making power. I look at this as mor than just a religious thing (with some of the reasons I’ve already explained). Again, a conflict of rights is very possible here, and your arguments really only sort of strengthen my desire to keep things as they are.

for a moment, can you look beyond yourself, and see that your religious opinions shouldn’t govern the marriage and childrearing decisions of others?

Nick, marriage is what it is. I don’t have much influence over the childrearing decisions of others. Right now, almost anyone can raise a child. I just don’t want marriage redefined, and I don’t think the interests of a few warrant such a redefinition. Like I said before, governments have had an interest in marriage for a while, and that not with a religious reasoning as the foundation. It’s beneficial to society, and I want to keep it that way. I don’t want to experiment with something this major. You don’t need marriage to live the life you want to live. If you want some of the rights that come with a committed relationship (which I can understand wanting, and for which I think there might be room), I could see that something might be doable legally. But don’t mess with marriage.

Comment # 58 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

Also, why would your right to hold and express your opinion be threatened by legalizing gay marriage?

Because if gay marriage passes, it wouldn’t be unlikely to have hate crimes legislation also follow, which would likely restrict the ability of people to speak out against gay marriage.

Comment # 59 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

Michelle: You don’t need marriage to live the life you want to live. If you want some of the rights that come with a committed relationship (which I can understand wanting, and for which I think there might be room), I could see that something might be doable legally.

So are you saying that you wouldn’t be opposed to civil unions among gays? So long as it is not recognized as marriage?

Michelle: Because if gay marriage passes, it wouldn’t be unlikely to have hate crimes legislation also follow, which would likely restrict the ability of people to speak out against gay marriage.

That is perhaps the most slippery slope I have ever seen. Do what is right; let the consequence follow, eh? If it is right to tolerate, love, and treat others as equals, then it is right; the irrational fear that this will somehow be used against you in the future is not a good excuse. Also, how could speaking out against gays be a hate crime. Even the most controversial bigots (KKK, neo-Nazis, etc.) have the right to free speech, and frequently have rallies, marches, etc.

Now, if you’re planning on physically hurting a gay person because of their sexual orientation, then yes, you should be worried about hypothetical future hate crime laws…

Comment # 60 left by APJ on February 26th, 2007

Do what is right; let the consequence follow, eh?

Indeed. I guess the question is what one feels is “right.” It is not irrational fear that motivates my position on these things, APJ. No one can predict for sure what will happen if gay marriage passes. I have shared some of the “secular” concerns that I have. But the bottom line reason I hold to this position is because I trust the prophets of God.

If you do want to read something that I thought shed some interesting light on what people on both sides of the issue think about what could happen, read here.

Comment # 61 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

So are you saying that you wouldn’t be opposed to civil unions among gays? So long as it is not recognized as marriage?

No, I would prefer to see something that doesn’t get to a legalized union per se but might allow for the rights that are supposedly desired. I’m still not sure what that would look like, and a lot would depend on how it was all laid out and executed. I can empathize with wanting one’s life partner to be able to visit in the hospital, etc. But I dont think they need a formally recognized union to be able to do this.

Comment # 62 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

p.s. I like this from Bruce Hafen, which I think gets to what Eric said:

“Our laws distinguish between toleration and endorsement by maintaining three broad categories of conduct: (1) conduct that is “prohibited,” such as robbery; (2) conduct that is “permitted,” such as making a contract; and (3) conduct that is especially “protected” (as by special constitutional rights), such as worshipping God or giving a political speech…

Marriage was historically understood in American law, even from a secular viewpoint, as a three-­party arrangement, with the state as a conscious party. This understanding has reflected society’s high stake in each marriage. Indeed, it is precisely the public part of marriage — the high degree of social interest involved in its very concept and ­function — that distinguishes it from all other relationships and contracts. To marry is to accept a public responsibility to the community and its basic social values, especially its values about what is best for children. [which gets to the point of David’s post]

For this reason, the society itself, through its legislatures, has retained the primary role in determining which relationships, which privileges, and which duties reflect the kind of marriage that satisfies society’s long-­term interest in creating the culture of the future.

Our present legal definition of marriage has not yet really altered this time-­honored understanding, but our recent public conversations have obscured it, and the outcome of the same-­sex marriage debate could obliterate it. ”

Found here.

Comment # 63 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

I am very uncomfortable with the original post’s (and Elder Oaks’s) stand that only we hetero members are allowed to experience something as important and wonderful as physical intimacy, while those who are “born with same-sex attraction” are condemned to live celibate lives. This is strong punishment for the sin of being born gay.

(And please don’t try to equate this with acting on an attraction to children or animals, neither of which has any relationship to what two consenting adults may desire.)

Comment # 64 left by Kerry on February 26th, 2007

No, I would prefer to see something that doesn’t get to a legalized union per se but might allow for the rights that are supposedly desired.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

Comment # 65 left by Phouchg on February 26th, 2007

Kerry,
Sometimes things that are right are hard and uncomfortable. I know it’s not quite the same thing, but single people who never get to marry (maybe some because of something they “inherited’ when born, such as physical appearance or other characteristics that may contribute to their singleness) are expected to live celibate lives, too. If all we had was this life to consider, I would say your position would have a lot more strength. But a huge part of faith is knowing that there is more to our existence that this life. What we receive, though, hinges on how we live God’s commandments. Would we really be doing gays a favor in the church if we made an exception to the law for them (not that we could) so that they would limit their eternal blessings? Our faith can’t allow us to do that.

Comment # 66 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

Michelle,
Your response reminds me of the many arguments I used to hear in the 70s concerning “negroes and the priesthood.” All the doctrine experts were certain the stand was solid and would never change until the second coming (Brigham Young even said that anyone who mixed blood with the “seed of Cain” must be executed immediately). Then suddenly everything changed.

How strong and solid do you think the church’s stand is against accepting the gay lifestyle? Stronger than plural marriage? Stronger than the priesthood ban for blacks?

My previous statement ignores faith altogether and just focuses on basic fairness. We know that church doctrine changes as necessary, as shown in my two examples. I think this will change eventually too.

Comment # 67 left by Kerry on February 26th, 2007

I think this will change eventually too.

This is clearly where we differ. The other two “examples” you give are not fundamental, foundational doctrines to the plan of salvation. They also have at least some tie to the scriptures, whereas homosexuality receives no such support at any level. The church can’t call evil good, even if society wants to.

Fundamentally, though, I know I can’t convince you that this won’t change, and you won’t be able to change my mind, so we are probably at an impasse and will have to wait for time to tell.

Comment # 68 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

Michelle,
I’m fine with agreeing to disagree, but before I stop bothering you, perhaps you could explain to me first how not tolerating a gay lifestyle for about 2% of the population is fundamental or foundational (even more than plural marriage, which is still scripture and was once seen as a requirement for exaltation).

Have you seen Quinn’s research on the subject, where he posits that the early church was much more tolerant of the lifestyle — until the 1950s? Although perhaps you dismiss his work out of hand because he was ex-ed.

Comment # 69 left by Kerry on February 26th, 2007

The other two “examples” you give [the priesthood ban and polygamy] are not fundamental, foundational doctrines to the plan of salvation.

Well, I think it’s worth noting that plural marriage was once taught to be a requirement for exaltation.

For instance, Brigham Young said, “If you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained” (Journal of Discourses, 11:266).

That, in my opinion, would make it a “fundamental, foundational doctrine of the plan of salvation,” at least in Brigham Young’s day. Yet our views on plural marriage have changed drastically.

For what it’s worth, in the same sermon referenced above, Brother Brigham said the following about blacks and the priesthood:

“Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. ”

While this doctrine may not be considered quite as “foundational,” I think the withholding of the priesthood from an entire race of people is a pretty significant. Fortunately, our views on race have also changed.

These are just two of many doctrines that have evolved and changed over the years. So I don’t think it’s out of the question to suspect that our views on other doctrines will change in the future as well.

The Church’s stance on homosexuality has evolved (ever so slightly). Just compare Elder Packer’s “To the One” to more recent comments on same-sex attraction. It may be slow, but I suspect that the wheels are still turning and we may see further changes in the (perhaps distant) future.

Comment # 70 left by Steve M on February 26th, 2007

perhaps you could explain to me first how not tolerating a gay lifestyle for about 2% of the population is fundamental or foundational

btw, Kerry, it’s not a matter of you “bothering” me…it’s just that we will probably just continue to talk past each other and disagree so I wonder at what point it’s good to just stop. But I’m happy to keep discussing if you want to.

What I meant is this: Something that runs counter to the plan of salvation is something that the church can’t back down on doctrinally. We can’t suddenly say that single people who won’t get married can just go have sex freely now because they were born with those needs and be without consequence. Likewise, the church can’t back down on that law for homosexuals, either. Homosexuality itself is what I mean to be fundamentally and foundationally against the plan of salvation. “Male and female created he them;” “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Any other arrangement not allowed by God runs counter to His plan. At some point, the voice of the people may not choose to keep marriage as is. But that won’t mean the church will change its doctrine.

So, as for Quinn, I basically dismiss anyone’s point of view who counters what the prophets say, Kerry. So, if he thinks there is room in our doctrine for homosexuality, then I disagree with him, regardless of his standing in teh church. This is one of those issues on which I think there is no room to budge in our doctrine, and I don’t ever see it changing.

Maybe you can explain why you think we need to fundamentally change an institution that has been around for millenia to suit the 2% of the population. Is there no other way in your mind to be “fair”? Marriage has never been a right…it’s a responsibility that has societal ties and commitments bound to it. Why not consider other approaches to get them the rights they want?

Again, I also think there is more to consider than being “fair” to gays. Is changing marriage going to be fair to everyone else? No one really wants to answer that question, and may not fully be able to, but I’m not at all convinced that it won’t have significant negative ramifications on our society, on our children, and on God’s plan in general. Consider also the warnings prophets have given.

The other sincere question I would have for you is this (although I’m working on a post more on this topic if we want to avoid a threadjack here, so at least you can consider this and respond later): What does having prophets mean to you if you don’t think they are trustworthy on hard issues? It seems to me that a key time to look to them is on tough issues like this where many are screaming one thing, while they calmly and consistely teach another — and where maybe we can’t even fully understand all of the danger they may see or at least have been warned about. By definition, watchmen on the tower can see what we cannot, so I don’t expect everything they say to be consistent with what I can see and understand. I simply don’t understand what value people see in our prophetic leadership if we can simply ignore what they say because we don’t like it. Scriptures and history tell us that following the prophets is rarely easy or popular, and their positions often don’t “make sense” either, at least not until it’s too late.

Comment # 71 left by Michelle on February 26th, 2007

plural marriage was once taught to be a requirement for exaltation.

Actually, from what I have read and understood, acceptance of the principle (i.e., not fighting the prophet’s word about it) was needed for those people, but not living it — not all people were asked to live it, so I don’t think it makes sense to declare that exaltation was contigent on something not everyone was living. Note BY’s statement to “be polygamists at least in your faith” — not necessarily in practice. If you fight against the prophet, you put your exaltation at risk …that’s what I hear him saying (and that’s consistent with scripture as well, for all of us).

Incidentally, polygamy is not a foundational doctrine because it’s not been commanded throughout history by God, nor has it been sanctioned by God throughout history. At times He has decried it (as He does now, and as he did in Jacob 2). God can command and revoke as He sees fit to suit his purposes (a la Jacob 2), but He won’t do that with homosexuality because it won’t help his plan roll forward in any way.

Steve, there are scriptural examples where God Himself put curses on people and kept them there for a while. I personally don’t think this is even close to the same thing as homosexuality. I don’t pretend to understand what happened with the blacks, and I’m profoundly grateful that the 1978 revelatiion was received so that now there is no question about those things, but I’m not prepared to assume hook, line and sinker that it was all a mistake. It could have had a place for some reason. Again, making homosexuality ok in God’s is not even in the same ball park as having God say, “OK, now the blacks can have the priesthood.” There is nothing to indicate that giving the blacks the priesthood would somehow thwart or threaten God’s plan, whereas you can’t say the same about homosexuality. It flies in the face of everything God has taught from the beginning of time. Marriage between a man and woman is ESSENTIAL to God’s plan. There is no way to get around that clear statement, imo.

I would argue that the Church’s understanding of homosexuality has evolved over time (potential causes, for example), but the clarity about sinful behavior has not changed. Sin is sin and will always be so. You can’t take something unnatural and make it natural. It will never be. Our “male and female” biology clearly attests to this. BESIDES, we can’t act based on what we hope might change. We are expected to live according to what we have now. In a sense, neither past nor future matter to us in terms of what we will be held accountable for. If we live in polygamous relationships now, we can’t enjoy membership in the church. If we live in homosexual relationships, hoping or assuming doctrine might change, we will be judged according to God’s laws as they stand when we make our choices. In a sense, all of this “it might change” talk is pointless. We can’t a