Prop 8. and temple recommends

[Suzie]

Many thanks to you, kind sir.

Wingnut is a "sir" (He?)?

First it was Moksha who I thought it was a "she". Now this?

Something really wrong with me.

[FunkyTown]

Wingnut is a "sir" (He?)?

First it was Moksha who I thought it was a "she". Now this?

Something really wrong with me.

Wingnut is a she.

[Suzie]

Wingnut is a she.

Phew! Oh cool.

[GaySaint]

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.

[GaySaint]

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?

Edited August 9, 2010 by GaySaint

[PrinceofLight2000]

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.

First, you misquoted him. He said: "Now, the choice to engage in this behavior may be as a result of an addiction". He never alleged that it was the only reason.

As for this second point, just open your eyes. We've seen the effects judicial activism has on our legal system. Since the court has made the decision to declare morality for us, people will assume that an opposite declaration of morality is unconstitutional, which isn't the case as I demonstrated earlier. The government is applying the Constitution to things which have no relation to it, so they can force their morality on the rest of us and usurp our rights as a people. Do you really believe the leftists won't use this ruling as a weapon to extrapolate their agenda as far as it can go; the democratic process be cursed? However, it's appropriate to do so by legislation because legislation can be reversed through legislation. This is the process for defining a generally accepted morality, and changing it.

Thirdly, if you'd like purely secular evidence against gay marriage, take a look at this link:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

I already argued the point that same-sex marriage does nothing to contribute to the state interest in propagating society.

[GaySaint]

I already argued the point that same-sex marriage does nothing to contribute to the state interest in propagating society.

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.

[Hemidakota]

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?

How do you have children when they are both females - or - both males? If this is the intent of marriage, there is no progeny at all in “a perfect world”. I am not talking about injecting sperm into eggs or any form of a adoption to overcome this simple issue. So, were does this statement come into effect? It is actually meaningless at this point. You simply cannot procreate at all in a perfect world. Now, is there joy in this?

[GaySaint]

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.

[GaySaint]

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.

[Soulsearcher]

How do you have children when they are both females - or - both males? If this is the intent of marriage, there is no progeny at all in “a perfect world”. I am not talking about injecting sperm into eggs or any form of a adoption to overcome this simple issue. So, were does this statement come into effect? It is actually meaningless at this point. You simply cannot procreate at all in a perfect world. Now, is there joy in this?

So you apply this same argument to couples who cannot have children anyother way? Families based on adoption and invetro fertilization aren't realy families even if it is a man and a woman, they are meaningless?

[Hemidakota]

I said in a perfect world. You simply cannot have children in a normal method of creation. Then "why use such a statement"? As, defining true love or joy...not possible unless one has experience it to really understand it. Yes! We could read about it but first witness of such event gives a truer meaning to both.

However, I do not answer to what can a "A-sexual being" could create.

[Hemidakota]

So you apply this same argument to couples who cannot have children anyother way? Families based on adoption and invetro fertilization aren't realy families even if it is a man and a woman, they are meaningless?

Next time...read the underline term.

[Soulsearcher]

Next time...read the underline term.

I read it, it doesn't exist, so we can't hold anyone to what should happen in a perfect world because there never will be one.

[GaySaint]

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,

[Hemidakota]

I read it, it doesn't exist, so we can't hold anyone to what should happen in a perfect world because there never will be one.

Hmm...that is funny, why have the millennium? That is a perfect world comparing to this state. But then, we have the celestial glory. That is a perfect world. Yes! They will still have children even in that state.

[Hemidakota]

I read it, it doesn't exist, so we can't hold anyone to what should happen in a perfect world because there never will be one.

Hmm...that funny, why have the millennium? That is a perfect world comparing to this state. But then, we have the celestial glory. That is a perfect world. Yes! They will still have children even in that state.

[Hemidakota]

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,

Interesting question...do you think there is going to be any “active” H/L in the millennium?

[Suzie]

So you apply this same argument to couples who cannot have children anyother way? Families based on adoption and invetro fertilization aren't realy families even if it is a man and a woman, they are meaningless?

Exactly. However, I do know of people who think a couple's life isn't meaningful enough because they don't have their own children. How stupid. Anyone who is healthy enough can give BIRTH/participate in the birth of a child, it doesn't make you a parent hence the whole scenario is ridiculous. There are people who have children and they do not find "joy" in them but quite the opposite. That scenario has way too many holes.

[GaySaint]

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.

[Hemidakota]

This is where I do agree. Our opinions are really meaningless for this life unless we are coequal what the Godhead has already mandated. What really matters to any person on this planet are how we conduct ourselves in this life is what we receive in the next. Again, not many in the church will ever reach the level of a Condor (analogy of the bird of prey with the celestial three states). It is about whom we serve and how we serve.

Many will be Hawks

Some Eagles

But a few Condors

[PrinceofLight2000]

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.

First, adoption =/= propagation.

Secondly, I gave you secularist (not religiously) moral reasoning for why Prop 8 would still be considered constitutional as legislation. Whether you consider it valid, is your opinion. As you said, to you, Prop 8 failing to pass benefits you and your family greatly. Whether it benefits society however is a largely moral and thereby legislative debate. I never claimed that your stance on same-sex marriage would not be constitutional by means of legislation. It is, however, immoral, and should be prohibited by law. Where someone draws their morality from is irrelevant. Again, it's not about having a particular faith take over the secular government (which would violate separation of church and state), it's about applying a generally accepted morality drawn from varying faiths and worldviews to society.

Of course, neither of our arguments would hold up in the courtroom because this is NOT a constitutional issue. It's a moral one. I'll say it again, the court should never have questioned the constitutionality of prop 8. People like yourself should have worked to repeal the initiative instead.

Also, I have a problem with you (and the defense attorney) classifying homosexuality in line with race and sex when it comes to "prejudice" and "hate crime". Race and gender* are inherent by birth, and cannot be changed. The jury is still out scientifically on whether homosexual tendencies are a medical occurrence. I tend to side with the General Authorities, in that despite there being the possibility of a naturally occurring tendency, one can still modify their thoughts and behaviors into becoming at least asexual when their morals align with a different conclusion. In some personal cases there have been gay people who have made a full change to heterosexuality. Because of that we can determine maintaining such tendencies as being a choice, and by extension, as being behaviors. Finally, as I've argued before in this thread, behavior is rightfully governed by our law making body's ability to legislate morality.

Those who argue against legislating morality love to accuse such legislation as being tyrannical. However, the Founders realized that we had a need for both maintaining order by legislating morality, and adjusting laws when that morality changes. That's why legislation can be overridden by an initiative, or repealed.

*Sex changes don't change the fact that you were born one way or the other, and that your original anatomy remains constant despite the changes you may make to your body. Hermaphrodites are the only exception to this. Just a tangent, but I thought I'd elaborate a bit.

Edited August 9, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[GaySaint]

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...

[Moksha]

Im going to make this short and sweet. A couple of questions:

1. What reasons would an active LDS person have for promoting the strike of Prop. 8?

2. If you find yourself promoting same sex marriage, at what point do you become ineligible or a temple recommend because of this temple recommend question:

"Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?"

The line in which the religious becomes political is the line in which religious authority becomes political authority. Best to render unto God the things that are of God and not cross over into the world of Caesar. Crossing this line and demanding others cross it too is not what Jesus had in mind.

[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