GaySaint

Prince: Personally, for all of the adopted children and parents out there, I think it should look like this: Adoption <= Propagation, although I'm sure some will argue it is even >=. Since we're discussing morality, I don't see how it is moral to strip these children of stable families because they are adopted, even if you do think their parents are immoral. Can you elaborate please? In addition, you forgot this one: Surrogacy == propagation

The morality of the issue doesn't concern me, really. You may think it is immoral, and that is fine. That is your opinion based on what you believe is revealed truth. There are other religions who disagree. While this is an LDS forum and I must concede to your morality point simply on the basis that the church rules it as such, in the secular sphere your argument doesn't hold up. You seem to be saying that a homosexual person cannot be a moral person. I highly disagree. In addition, I think you would have a hard time justifying the inability of a homosexual to be moral outside of a religious context. I could turn your secuarlist morality around on you by saying it is immoral to vote away a civil right of a minority (and since sexual orientation is a protected class in California, and the May 2008 ruling of the court specified marriage as a civil right in California, that is exactly what prop 8 did. I realize this doesn't apply federally or to all states at this time, just in California). Morality is too subjective to be legislated without justifyable cause. You may have made a morally secular argument, but you left out the justification. It isn't enough to say gay unions don't do anything for society (a point I discredited with legal testimony, but that you simply dismissed without justification). To claim homosexuality is immoral you must show that it harms others - which you simply cannot do from a secular, scientific point of view. By the way, the science is not out on the mutability of homosexuality. Every credible scientific organization agrees it is not mutable. You said that "maintaining" such tendencies are a choice, but you are misinformed. The tendencies don't go away when ignored. If you haven't been through reparative therapy (as I have), you really have no idea. Of course, if you know how to make such tendencies dissapear, I'm sure there are therapists around the globe who would welcome such knowledge. Can one choose celibacy? Sure. But that doens't make one less gay. It makes someone a celibate gay. Whether one chooses celibacy is a religious question, not a secular one, and it certainly should not be forced on all members of society because of your definition of "moral." Ironically, to do so would be rather immoral...

They are probably the ones on Wikileaks now. I got them somewhere else. I've never heard that the Proclaimation was used as cover for the anti-gay-marriage campaign, at least not in any of my circles. Actually, I've had lengthy discussions on the doctrinal basis for the Proc - about the fact that it isn't actual doctrine of the church (and in fact, can't doctrinally define marriage as one man and one woman, because that is not the only celestial order), and could actually have room for same-gender marriage. I don't think anyone disagrees that gender is important to the eternal nature of an individual (and I don't think this takes anything away from a transgendered person if read correctly, nor can someone argue that it is impossible for someone to be born with a body of the wrong sex, particularly in regards to intersex individuals for whom the parent "chooses" - but that's a whole 'nother thread... haha), but the document never actually says anything regarding sexual orientation. So I feel able to defend the Proc. that way, and don't see why a member of the church couldn't as well. The original intent of the document, I don't know, but I don't think it speaks as clearly on the issue as those who quote it against us think it does. But that's just my lowly opinion.

Hemi: I think the answer to that question is way too drawn out, and I'm not sure how my opinion on that matter would further the discussion. There are some very sacred, personal things I feel I should not talk about that could be hit upon if we continued that particular line of questioning, so I hope that answer is sufficient.

Hemi: I guess we could discuss whether or not gay people would even exist in a perfect word If you don't think they would, then the point WOULD be meaningless, I suppose. Of course, so would your counterpoint,

JAG: The earliest one I have was dated Oct 31, 2005... so Hinckley's administration... not that it matters. I'm actually posting this because if you have any interest, I have all the letters in question, haha. I'd gladly zip them up and email them to you if you'd like.

Hemi: Getting very personal here... but I intend on having children eventually. Perhaps in a perfect world you would be right... perhaps not. But to claim gay people can't have joy in having children is ludicrous (and I realize you aren't saying this exactly). Like I said earlier, there are millions of children being raised by gay couples in the US every day. I happen to know a father of two twins who used surrogacy - the same technology used to have children by heterosexual couples who find themselves unable to reproduce. Since we are not in a perfect world, I don't think the point is meaningless. It certainly isn't to me.

Justice: I should note something I've said before... I'm a stanch supporter of religious freedoms (although I don't believe religious freedoms and gay marriage are mutually exclusive). I would be for adding language to certain bills, or expanding religious freedoms to ensure that gay marriage doesn't encroach on the realms of free speech or doctrinal practice. There is no reason the church should be forced to accept gay marriage or change any doctrine, unless God himself so dictates. But by the same token, there is no reason why gay marriage should be denied on a secular level because of religious doctrine. I believe it is possible for the two to mutually co-exist and I think the LDS church is already ahead on this point, because they already separate civil marriage from eternal marriage.

You didn't prove anything though; you only presented your opinion. Gay marriage may have no state interest or societal interest TO YOU, but to me (and seeing as how I am a member of society, and gay marriage would benefit me and my family greatly), I see great value in marriage equality, both personally, and to society. And there was ample evidence of this presented during the Prop 8 trial (regardless of the current ruling). Even the witnesses for the defense of prop 8 admitted that gay marriage would benefit society by benefiting gay couples and the 9 MILLION children being raised in homes with same-sex couples as at the head. David Blankenhorn for the prop 8 DEFENSE admitted that, “Adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children,” and would be “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion” and “a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.” He also testified that it would result in fewer children growing up in state institutions and instead being raised by loving parents and would in fact reduce the divorce rate; reduce promiscuity; improve the stability of couples’ relationships; increase wealth for families and reduce government costs; and a decline in “anti-gay prejudice” and “anti-gay hate crimes.” I see a lot of lofty, valuable goals in that testimony. I'll remind you again that this was a witness who is against gay marriage. Please also be aware that any argument you use regarding children can also be applied to the children of same-sex couples around the country. They deserve just as much protection as any other child. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but your secular reasonings are simply justification for religious ones. I would prefer you just say "God says marriage is between one man and one woman." To me, that stance is more palatable.

Elder Bednar in that video: "...and the greatest joy in life comes in marriage and as children come into your home." Amen. Which is exactly the reason why I believe in equal marriage. If marriage and children are the greatest joys in life, why would anyone want to take those things away from someone else?

Oops. This is what I get for taking the weekend off. I think you misinterpret my reason for being here. I have no desire to change the view of the religious community to the point where they no longer believe homosexuality to be sinful. My desire is to change the religious community to the point where they understand the gay perspective so they can better help those who are in the fold and who wish to stay in the fold, as well as have a conversation with those outside of the fold while understanding their point of view (building bridges instead of burning them). And someone who believes gays are only out to destroy the church and marriage are WAY outside of the realm of reality (while at the same time I would have to admit there probably are some who fall into this category, just like there are members of other religious communities who fall into this category - but the MAJORITY cannot be painted with such a broad brush).

Justice: I have to take issue with your idea that the only reason someone would engage in same-sex behavior is because of addiction. I would certainly hope heterosexual couples who love each other and commit to each other don't just engage in "heterosexual behavior" because they are addicted to it =) There is no reason to believe it is any different for homosexuals. As to Elder Bednar's talk, I've read the entire transcript of that evening (it's available on Wikileaks... though I took it with a grain of salt because who knows if it is actually 100% correct). While I find the analogy a good one, I have a hard time with it's defense. No one can tell us what these mysterious "ripple effects" are going to be - let alone if they will be negative. My interest is in protecting my family, and no one has been able to give me a good reason (not even the prop 8 defense lawyers) as to how my usage of societies accepted form of monogamy is going to have a negative impact on anyone else.

JAG: Doesn't the 9th District court currently have 4 vacancies and only 3 active judges? I thought I read that somewhere... but that would make it rather hard to have 4 LDS judges in the court.

JAG: I think the only part of that comment I agree with is the part about how gay marriage won't impact religious freedoms. It is my opinion that if/when gay marriage is legalized and gays are equal on a secular footing, that will pretty much be the end of it. I really have no idea what religious freedoms will be stripped from someone if gay marriage were legalized (so yes, I also think putting gay marriage and religious freedoms on the same footing - as in one cannot exist unless the other does not - is a mistake). That isn't to say that there aren't some crazy activists out there who are going to try to push buttons, but the majority of gay people just want to be able to protect their own families, and have no desire to change anyone's opinions of the "sinfulness" of homosexuality, or interfere with any religious principle or practice. As for the crazy activists? You can bet I'd testify on behalf of, and be highly involved with, the church if they ever tried to do anything stupid :).

I'm actually a little surprised that the strategy of the anti-gay-marriage crowd is to appeal. Currently, from what I understand, this ruling only applies to California. If it is appealed, it will apply to the ninth district, and if appealed then, will apply to the nation. If Judge Walker's ruling is upheld even by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, gay marriage will come to quite a few states - and if it is upheld by the Supreme court, to the nation. I'm surprised that the protect marriage crowd is willing to risk losing the entire nation over a decision that only now impacts one state. Law guys: can you clarify this for me? Is my understanding wrong?

Good point Omega: I think no matter the outcome, SOMEONE is going to get blamed. Currently it is the "activist homosexual judge," but if the decision came out differently, I'm sure you are right - we would then be blaming the "conservative judge" or the "religious judge" or the "homophobic judge." There is just no way to escape criticism with this issue.

Ok Just checking.

Funky: I shouldn't laugh because it's true. He, no doubt, will accomplish the personal advancements - whether intended or not.

Moby: I agree, and don't understand the whole Christian point of view here - but like I said, I'm not the one who would be against this solution. Maybe PC could chime in here when he gets a moment, or you could search for his posts (PrisonChaplin) on this issue.

Bytor: I think you just excluded every living man, woman, and child over the age of 8 by your definitino of 'good' - haha. After all, every single person who has ever sinned has fought against the church. I would hate for you to belittle gays and lesbians because of your lack of understanding about what they go through - especially the struggle a gay LDS member experiences. Your post could be misinterpereted - and I would hate for a struggling member to read it and internalize that they aren't "good." Perhaps we should reserve judgement for God.

Traveler: I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask: You don't think a single mom and her son or daughter constitutes a family? You don't think grandparents raising their grandchildren, or aunts and uncles raising neices and nephews, etc, are a family? I think the word "Family" can be very big to define, so I would just have to say that I agree with your definition, but would expand it to include all of the situations above, as well as same-sex couples who knit their lives together, fall in love, commit, and ESPECIALLY those who have children. Perhaps the IDEAL would be one man, one woman, children, etc (although I would say that I believe two men and two women can match that ideal... at least scientifically and secularly speaking - I know there will be religious disagreements), but that doesn't mean the other family dynamics are any less deserving of recognition and protection.

Back to the OP: The church leadership was advised not to ask how someone voted in Prop 8, from what I understand. Therefore, if you believe you can sustain the leadership of the church and still be for same-sex marriage (and I know many many members who feel they can), then the answer to that temple recommend interview question should just be, "Yes." I realize there will be some to disagree. Didn't Scott Trotter say something about how there wouldn't be any church disipline for those who disagreed with the church during the prop 8 fiasco? Does someone have a source for that quote? I can't find it...

Moby: Your solution has been proposed before, and works well for LDS peopel who already believe that a marriage in the church is greater than a marriage outside of it, but as PC will attest, turning all marriages into civil unions and allowing churches to marry who they will IS the same "destruction of marriage" the Christian community is so worried about. To them, that will literally destroy marriage as they know it - destroying the marriage THEY believe God intended. So that solution would work well for the LDS, but not for the Christian community. Just FYI :) But strangely, that is a solution upon which the LDS and the gay community could agree... haha. But you'll have a hard time getting the Christians to jump on that train.

I do think it is possible for a gay judge to be impartial in a case dealing with gay issues. However, in a case like this, it would be naive of me to believe he WAS impartial. Obviously I'm in favor and agree with his ruling, and think it was well constructed, regardless of his sexuality. Still, I would have preferred it if he were straight, simply to avoid the speculation that his sexuality influenced his ruling in the future. After all, as Pam alluded to, if it were an LDS judge who upheld prop 8, his religion would be blamed as making him biased. How can we not expect the same argument if Judge Walker is gay?

For the record, Melissa: Gay people don't see the gay marriage fight as trying to get anyone to accept the homosexual lifestyle - we see marriage as the only way society has set up to allow families to be protected, and as such we see it as a necessity to protect our own families. On the flip side, gay people tend to see a religious person voting against same-sex marriage as a way for them to force their religious views on the gay community, but that is also not true (as I'm sure you will attest). Instead, it is about your view and your need to protect YOUR family. As soon as we can get around all the fear, lies, misconceptions, etc. and realize that each side is just trying to protect their families, I think the argument will turn out to be more of a discussion, and the rhetoric will be toned down to the point where we can finally agree on an outcome. But as long as both sides deal in hyperbole, this will be a struggle with victories and defeats, and this issue will always be a "hot-button" issue. So let me tell you now: I have no desire to force you to accept my lifestyle – but I will fight tooth and nail to protect my family. And society's way of doing so is with marriage. Currently there is no other equivalent offer.