Prop 8. and temple recommends

[bytor2112]

People are for and against Christ in different levels. It isn't black and white. I obey certain commandments and am for Christ in those things. Where I disobey, I am against him. There are shades of gray that Elder McConkie refused or chose not to discuss. It left many members convinced they could never make it to heaven, because they just were not able to live up to Elder McConkie's standards required for salvation.

Great points Ram. I am a huge McConkie fan and am currently reading The Millennial Messiah. He was a very black and white guy, but I suspect in person he was a bit more generous. I recently read the biography written by his son...very warm read. My take is that he believed the standard should be very high....kind of like "Aim for the moon and even if you fall short, you'll land among the stars.". Interestingly, he believed that most would inherit the Celestial Kingdom.....if they honored their covenants and stayed in the main stream of the church. He often warned against trying to be "truer than true".

[applepansy]

Justaname. One of the temple recommend questions is "Do you support the President Thomas S. Monson as Prophet Seer and Revelator". In my opinion, since the prophet as spoken on this issue any other stand would be directly disobedient to the prophet and could prevent someone from getting a temple recommend, IF they were honest enough to state in the interview that they didn't agree with the church's position on SSM.

[Moksha]

Not to worry, gay marriages cannot affect your spiritual wellbeing unless you seek to get one or perform one. One the other hand, failing to love "the other" may have direct consequences. That in essence means that if one of your friends or family chooses a gay marriage, continue to love them and perhaps send flowers.

:)

[Suzie]

In my opinion, since the prophet as spoken on this issue any other stand would be directly disobedient to the prophet and could prevent someone from getting a temple recommend, IF they were honest enough to state in the interview that they didn't agree with the church's position on SSM.

Disobedience to the Prophet? Was it a commandment in the first place? (just curious).

[crazypotato]

The Prophet specifically asked us to vote against gay marriage. So if we vote for it we are opposing the prophet. Usually the prophet is uninvolved in politics and leaves it up to our own judgement. When he is this specific, and all it involves is casting a ballot against gay marriage, then that is an easy thing to do, in my opinion.

I don't follow the prophet in all ways, but I agree with him about everything. I don't follow him perfectly because I am weak and sinful, but I still believe him, trust him, and want to follow him better than I do.

As far as not getting a temple recommend, I think it is up to you and your bishop to judge, but I think if you are directly opposing the LDS's church's stand on gay marriage, such as actively involved in protests, etc, then I don't think a temple recommend is appropriate. As Melissa said, you should find a church that you pretty much believe in and agree with. If you disagree with your prophet on a major issue, maybe you can't answer "yes" when they ask you if you believe and sustain the prophet and his counselors.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Because there is no legal argument to be made against same-sex marriage.

I'm going to disagree entirely here. The same-sex marriage bill and Prop 8 are both examples of legislating morality. We already legislate morality on a day-to-day basis. Murder, rape, theft, and indecency laws, just naming a few, are all very moral issues which are outlawed; just because more people disagree on the morality of this issue for different reasons doesn't make it any less expedient for the legislature to address. Need I also mention that our entire legal system is deeply rooted in Mosaic law, which shapes the law around morality as outlined by God? My point here is that legislating order based on a larger shared morality (hopefully based on God's word) held by a populace in question is key for any free society to hold itself together. The founders knew this, so they left the Constitution neutral in terms of defining morality, apart from stating it was immoral for governmental powers to take the God-given rights therein away from others.

Both pro and anti-gay marriage laws are constitutional, but we hold pro-gay marriage laws to be immoral. If the leftists in California didn't like Prop 8, they should have moved to have the initiative repealed. Instead, they took it to court, and this has just become another issue of judicial activism where the judge has trampled states' rights and the concept of federalism, defined morality in place of the people defining it through the direct vote inherent to initiatives, and has arbitrarily usurped and prevented the representative legislature from legislating against gay marriage on behalf of the people. "Constitutionally protected" rights are created out of whole cloth, and as we all know, Supreme Court decisions are ridiculously hard to overturn.

Oligarchy rears its ugly head once more.

Edited August 6, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's be fair, bytor, and give the reference as well

The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 144.

As such, your quote should not give McConkie the title of Elder, as he was not speaking for or on behalf of the Church with that statement.

I don't have my LDS Style Guide handy, so I can't give you the exact reference--but I'm pretty sure that there's no technical requirement that the term "Elder" be used only when a GA is officially speaking on behalf of the Church. McConkie was (per Wikipedia) ordained in 1972, so he was apparently an apostle when The Millennial Messiah was published.

Whether the quote is right or wrong, it is still quite proper to attribute it to "Elder" Bruce R. McConkie.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

I'm going to disagree entirely here. The same-sex marriage bill and Prop 8 are both examples of legislating morality. We already legislate morality on a day-to-day basis. Murder, rape, theft, and indecency laws, just naming a few, are all very moral issues which are outlawed; just because more people disagree on the morality of this issue doesn't make it any less expedient for the legislature to address. Need I also mention that our entire legal system is deeply rooted in Mosaic law, which shapes the law around morality as outlined by God? My point here is that legislating order based on a larger shared morality (hopefully based on God's word) held by a populace in question is key for any free society to hold itself together. The founders knew this, so they left the Constitution neutral in terms of defining morality, apart from stating it was immoral for governmental powers to take the God-given rights therein away from others.

Both pro and anti-gay marriage laws are constitutional, but we hold pro-gay marriage laws to be immoral. If the leftists in California didn't like Prop 8, they should have moved to have the initiative repealed. Instead, they took it to court, and this has just become another issue of judicial activism where the judge has defined morality in place of the people defining it through the direct vote inherent to initiatives, not to mention preventing the representative legislature from legislating against gay marriage. "Constitutionally protected" rights are created out of whole cloth, and as we all know, Supreme Court decisions are ridiculously hard to overturn.

Oligarchy rears its ugly head once more.

Problem with all the laws that you quoted about morality is they also actively harm others. They interfere with other peoples right to life, liberty or property. That's where the issue with using morality to govern is gray. Morality even outside of religion would be against this, the majority of humanity are against these things no matter what view they hold on marriage. So this really doesn't fit the mold. If we govern based solely on our view or morality in america, then you must support sharia law in the middle east, being it is a law based only on religious morality, after all it is called the law of god.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Problem with all the laws that you quoted about morality is they also actively harm others. They interfere with other peoples right to life, liberty or property. That's where the issue with using morality to govern is gray. Morality even outside of religion would be against this, the majority of humanity are against these things no matter what view they hold on marriage. So this really doesn't fit the mold. If we govern based solely on our view or morality in america, then you must support sharia law in the middle east, being it is a law based only on religious morality, after all it is called the law of god.

The definitions of what actively harms others and how, and how rights apply to us are also largely defined by morality. Same-sex marriage can be seen as harmful to society because it goes against nature and undermines the pivotal role the traditional family has in procreation, and by extension, the survival of that society, and by extension from that, the right to life. If you're LDS, obviously you believe the spirits to be born in future generations have the right to live. If every society tolerated behavior that undermined the procreative aspects of the family, and everyone adopted that behavior, humanity itself would collapse.

Edited August 6, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Wingnut]

I don't buy into the procreation argument. People don't have to be married to have kids. Straight people don't have to be married to have kids. Gay people don't have to be married to have sex. It's an irrelevant argument from a legal standpoint. From a moral one, it is still relevant when you believe that sex and procreation should only happen within a marriage.

[Soulsearcher]

Murder, rape and theft aren't subjective in how they harm others and saying this is because of religious morality is a foolish argument and so far off base that it's not worth looking into. Regulating a population by morality alone can lead to a very dangerous environment and an oppressive environment. Again i use the example of sharia law. We've sent forces into countries ruled by the exact type of culture you are proposing. There is no conclusive proof marriage of same sex couples will do the same level of damage as murder, rape, or theft. There is no proof at all that it will do any cultural damage that equates it to any crime that harms another, so again the argument comes down to a moral, not legal argument. Support the ideals you support, but realize you are supporting the "oppressive" cultures over seas because you are proposing the exact same ideals. Rule through what the strongest faith says is right, don't worry about the people who disagree, they are canon fodder.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I don't buy into the procreation argument. People don't have to be married to have kids. Straight people don't have to be married to have kids. Gay people don't have to be married to have sex. It's an irrelevant argument from a legal standpoint. From a moral one, it is still relevant when you believe that sex and procreation should only happen within a marriage.

The procreation argument specifically applies to same-sex marriage because procreation can't happen in such relationships. The fornication issue is a completely different legal animal.

[Soulsearcher]

So if we focus on procreation are we now going to require all children to be born only in marriage? How are we enforcing that only married couples have children? On the flip side what about married couples that can't or won't have children. Procreation is in no way a legal requirement for marriage so it can't be a valid argument legally applied to this argument.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Murder, rape and theft aren't subjective in how they harm others and saying this is because of religious morality is a foolish argument and so far off base that it's not worth looking into. Regulating a population by morality alone can lead to a very dangerous environment and an oppressive environment. Again i use the example of sharia law. We've sent forces into countries ruled by the exact type of culture you are proposing. There is no conclusive proof marriage of same sex couples will do the same level of damage as murder, rape, or theft. There is no proof at all that it will do any cultural damage that equates it to any crime that harms another, so again the argument comes down to a moral, not legal argument. Support the ideals you support, but realize you are supporting the "oppressive" cultures over seas because you are proposing the exact same ideals. Rule through what the strongest faith says is right, don't worry about the people who disagree, they are canon fodder.

Tell that to a true relativist and he'll scoff at you.

It's not a point of religious morality, it is of morality in general. Morality can be derived from many places and for many reasons, including religion.

Can lead to, are very key words here. Not to mention, the only branch that I stated is allowed to regulate a population by morality is through the legislature, and that's because legislation can always be repealed by our method of governance. Sharia law doesn't fit that model.

Again, I'll repeat myself. Determining harm in those circumstances is entirely a moral argument. In some things we know there is harm because God tells us (morality) there is harm (do the Ten Commandments ring a bell?), others however view human life as worthless and something that can be taken at their own pleasure.

This isn't about applying faith to a secular government, it's about applying a generally accepted morality to society. Whether or not you draw your morality from faith is entirely irrelevant to this process. Morals are the stitches that hold societies together. That said, it's rather ironic that most of our legally applied morality comes from God.

[Soulsearcher]

Tell that to a true relativist and he'll scoff at you.

It's not a point of religious morality, it is of morality in general. Morality can be derived from many places and for many reasons, including religion.

Can lead to, are very key words here. Not to mention, the only branch that I stated is allowed to regulate a population by morality is through the legislature, and that's because legislation can always be repealed by our method of governance. Sharia law doesn't fit that model.

Again, I'll repeat myself. Determining harm in those circumstances is entirely a moral argument. In some things we know there is harm because God tells us (morality) there is harm (do the Ten Commandments ring a bell?), others however view human life as worthless and something that can be taken at their own pleasure.

This isn't about applying faith to a secular government, it's about applying a generally accepted morality to society. Whether or not you draw your morality from faith is entirely irrelevant.

See nice try, but the problem is this is probably 90% a religiously moral argument. The entire fight was brought about by a coalition of churches, a great number of the add for the fight were produced and paid for by religious money, some from churches directly. A vast number of the arguments were directly commenting on scripture and god. The feelings about gays that aren't coming from a religious standpoint tend to come from fear and hate. Can you give the stats on the amount of people who do not have a religious issue with this and are just voting out of morality that comes from another source. Again, we can not vote laws solely on religious morality. So far you have proven again that there is no legal reason to oppose, just a moral code, mostly coming from religious origins. If you have anything that proves this wrong I'd like to see it, but the fact that your exact argument was the one used in the recent verdict shows it was lacking.

You need to bring a legal burden of proof. So far you haven't brought anything but morality. No proof of danger, no actual account of this doing the things you fear.

Procreation was shot down as a valid reason. As have a number of other of the arguments. I have no issue with the moral issue, but there is no legal stand point.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[PrinceofLight2000]

So if we focus on procreation are we now going to require all children to be born only in marriage? How are we enforcing that only married couples have children? On the flip side what about married couples that can't or won't have children. Procreation is in no way a legal requirement for marriage so it can't be a valid argument legally applied to this argument.

I already stated fornication is an entirely different legal animal.

Procreation may not be a legal requirement to marry, but there is no physically possible chance of it occurring in same-sex marriage. Married couples who can't have children are medical exceptions to this rule because their gender would have allowed them a chance if not for their medical problems or their choice to be sterilized. Married couples who don't want children are free to change their minds. Because same-sex marriage has no chance of physically causing procreation, if accepted and practiced on a wide scale, it threatens society itself and the lives of those yet to be born.

Edited August 8, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

I already stated fornication is an entirely different legal animal.

Procreation may not be a legal requirement to marry, but there is no physically possible chance of it occurring in same-sex marriage. Married couples who can't have children are medical exceptions to this rule. Married couples who don't want children are free to change their minds. Because same-sex marriage cannot physically cause procreation, if accepted on a wide scale, it threatens society itself and the lives of those yet to be born.

So we allow medical exceptions and people who make a choice to never procreate. So you support people who enter into marriage who will never have children based on a personal choice. Seems that tossed out your argument. again you are putting all the hope on something they may or might not do, they can make the same choice to never procreate. So again please explain how this is a legal requirement for marriage and how we can use this as a legal standard?

Can you explain to me the criminal codes that restrict sexual relations between consenting adults who are of legal age? You say fornication is another legal animal, I'd like the list of offenses that are applied to consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes who are not married that engage in sexual activities?

[PrinceofLight2000]

See nice try, but the problem is this is probably 90% a religiously moral argument. The entire fight was brought about by a coalition of churches, a great number of the add for the fight were produced and paid for by religious money, some from churches directly. A vast number of the arguments were directly commenting on scripture and god. The feelings about gays that aren't coming from a religious standpoint tend to come from fear and hate. Can you give the stats on the amount of people who do not have a religious issue with this and are just voting out of morality that comes from another source. Again, we can not vote laws solely on religious morality. So far you have proven again that there is no legal reason to oppose, just a moral code, mostly coming from religious origins. If you have anything that proves this wrong I'd like to see it, but the fact that your exact argument was the one used in the recent verdict shows it was lacking.

You need to bring a legal burden of proof. So far you haven't brought anything but morality. No proof of danger, no actual account of this doing the things you fear.

Procreation was shot down as a valid reason. As have a number of other of the arguments. I have no issue with the moral issue, but there is no legal stand point.

Can't someone say "I believe this is wrong" from their own conscience (albeit God-given) rather than saying "I believe this is wrong because God said it's wrong"? My entire point was that a similar moral conclusion does not have to come from a religious basis, rather it can also come from the human mind itself.

[Soulsearcher]

Can't someone say "I believe this is wrong" from their own conscience (albeit God-given) rather than saying "I believe this is wrong because God said it's wrong"? My entire point was that a similar moral conclusion does not have to come from a religious basis, rather it can also come from the human mind itself.

You can 100%, but don't confuse that with being legal.I can almost promise that without the intervention of churches in California not only would prop 8 not have passed, it never would have been on the ballot. Was a religious backed initiative. So can't say religious morality played no part, it was the reason for the entire thing.

You still have not given a sound legal basis for this argument. What is the legal standard you have to prove this is a legal issue not a moral one.

[PrinceofLight2000]

So we allow medical exceptions and people who make a choice to never procreate. So you support people who enter into marriage who will never have children based on a personal choice. Seems that tossed out your argument. again you are putting all the hope on something they may or might not do, they can make the same choice to never procreate. So again please explain how this is a legal requirement for marriage and how we can use this as a legal standard?

Can you explain to me the criminal codes that restrict sexual relations between consenting adults who are of legal age? You say fornication is another legal animal, I'd like the list of offenses that are applied to consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes who are not married that engage in sexual activities?

Except that people who decide they'll never have kids hardly ever follow through with it. A distinct line needs to be drawn. The possibility of procreation, defined by gender, is in these marriages. It has no possibility in same-sex marriages. Tolerating that behavior, morally and legally, will ultimately threaten society.

Some would argue how the government applies the right to privacy is incorrect.

Edited August 8, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[PrinceofLight2000]

You can 100%, but don't confuse that with being legal.I can almost promise that without the intervention of churches in California not only would prop 8 not have passed, it never would have been on the ballot. Was a religious backed initiative. So can't say religious morality played no part, it was the reason for the entire thing.

You still have not given a sound legal basis for this argument. What is the legal standard you have to prove this is a legal issue not a moral one.

That doesn't mean it could not have occurred otherwise. Morality can be independent from faith.

My entire point in posting in this thread was that all legal issues are inherently moral issues, and that we already legislate morality to levels defined in the Constitution.

Edited August 8, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

Except that people who decide they'll never have kids hardly ever follow through with it. A distinct line needs to be drawn. The possibility of procreation is in these marriages. It has no possibility in same-sex marriages. Tolerating that behavior, morally and legally, will ultimately threaten society.

Some would argue how the government applies the right to privacy is incorrect.

So first you have no list for the legal animal you labeled fornication. so there's one down.

Next a number of couples go to great and irreversible lengths to make sure they never ever have kids. Not a choice to be undone. So again you are creating a double standard. It's ok to make sure you never have kids as long as you are opposite sex, but to never produce kids as same sex is immoral?

So how is tolerating this behavior in less than 10% of the population who are already doing it really going to change things? So far you are telling same sex couple to go out and not bother with a single partner because we can't have kids. Sounds arguments about morality. And being we are so worried about the harm couples not producing children can cause again we go back to it being wrong for people who can not or will not and ensure they will never have kids why aren't we restricting their rights because they are immoral as well according to your definition. Only couples capable of childbirth are qualified for marriage, medical factors can't be taken into consideration because it can be argued an not dis-proven that homosexuality is a possibly medical condition. Opens to many doors to have any exceptions to a rule right?

[Soulsearcher]

That doesn't mean it could not have occurred otherwise. Morality can be independent from faith.

My entire point in posting in this thread was that all legal issues are inherently moral issues, and that we already legislate morality to levels defined in the Constitution.

Again you have yet to give examples of any "moral" law that does not affect another person in a measurable way in society. Please provide a law on the books that does not have a measurable impact on a second party? So far there is no measuable effect of gay marriage harming society except fears and illogical ideas, so please give the examples that support you legally banning something that has no measurable impact on another party?

[PrinceofLight2000]

So first you have no list for the legal animal you labeled fornication. so there's one down.

Next a number of couples go to great and irreversible lengths to make sure they never ever have kids. Not a choice to be undone. So again you are creating a double standard. It's ok to make sure you never have kids as long as you are opposite sex, but to never produce kids as same sex is immoral?

So how is tolerating this behavior in less than 10% of the population who are already doing it really going to change things? So far you are telling same sex couple to go out and not bother with a single partner because we can't have kids. Sounds arguments about morality. And being we are so worried about the harm couples not producing children can cause again we go back to it being wrong for people who can not or will not and ensure they will never have kids why aren't we restricting their rights because they are immoral as well according to your definition. Only couples capable of childbirth are qualified for marriage, medical factors can't be taken into consideration because it can be argued an not dis-proven that homosexuality is a possibly medical condition. Opens to many doors to have any exceptions to a rule right?

Wrong, both of those are immoral. God commands us to procreate. I don't know why you think I lump people physically unable to have children in with the ones who choose not to; one can't help being physically unable to do something and God understands that. However, society has a vested interest in prohibiting same sex marriage and protecting itself, again, because there is no possibility of procreation within them. And thereby a legal, secular argument.

You're assuming this behavior can't occur in 100% of the population by choice.

Additionally, homosexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual tendencies are uncontrollable and may be medical. Same sex marriage falls under homosexual behavior.

[Soulsearcher]

Wrong, both of those are immoral. God commands us to procreate. I don't know why you think I lump people physically unable to have children in with the ones who choose not to; one can't help being physically unable to do something and God understands that. However, society has a vested interest in prohibiting same sex marriage and protecting itself, again, because there is no possibility of procreation within them. And thereby a legal, secular argument.

You're assuming this behavior can't occur in 100% of the population by choice.

Additionally, homosexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual tendencies are uncontrollable and may be medical. Same sex marriage falls under homosexual behavior.

So where is the legal secular argument? Either people who can't have kids can marry or they can't. If you are saying some people who can't have kids can get married then it means you are creating a double standard not supported by the law. Again you keep falling back to a strictly moral argument, but have yet to make a single actually legally feasible argument. Again having a class of society that makes up less than 10% marrying and not producing kids when they never would any way does not affect society in any way that it would denying them that chance. Going with the argument you are making no one who is unable to produce kids can contribute to society and is a danger to the society if the marry because they remove the possibility of either of the partners finding a way to procreate. So please again make a clear legal argument.