Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

[PrinceofLight2000]

Hi everyone (especially you, Soul!)! I forgot my login information for a looooooooooong time. I'm now at BYUI and I got a 4.0 for my first semester. :)

You all might be surprised to hear me say this given some things I said a couple years back, but I'm wondering why on earth it matters if sins are legal or not when Heavenly Father is going to judge people how He wants anyway, and considering we're supposed to have agency?

[Vort]

You all might be surprised to hear me say this given some things I said a couple years back, but I'm wondering why on earth it matters if sins are legal or not when Heavenly Father is going to judge people how He wants anyway, and considering we're supposed to have agency?

Welcome back, PoL.

It matters because what we learn from larger society shapes our moral compass. This is true for all of us, but especially for those who do not have religious training to help them.

Two generations ago, almost everyone knew and accepted that elective abortion was a horrible evil; the argument for legalization was not that there was nothing wrong with it, but that it was necessary that women got to "choose" rather than "having their bodies controlled" by others, invariably characterized as old men. It was a minority fringe argument that babies were mere "tissue". Yet today, forty years after the vomitous (and legally appalling) Roe v. Wade, a large segment of society has come to accept that elective abortion is Just How Things Should Be. Societal acceptance of homosexuality is same song, verse two.

Not sure what agency has to do with anything. We have our agency regardless of which laws might exist.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Welcome back, PoL.

It matters because what we learn from larger society shapes our moral compass. This is true for all of us, but especially for those who do not have religious training to help them.

Two generations ago, almost everyone knew and accepted that elective abortion was a horrible evil; the argument for legalization was not that there was nothing wrong with it, but that it was necessary that women got to "choose" rather than "having their bodies controlled" by others, invariably characterized as old men. It was a minority fringe argument that babies were mere "tissue". Yet today, forty years after the vomitous (and legally appalling) Roe v. Wade, a large segment of society has come to accept that elective abortion is Just How Things Should Be. Societal acceptance of homosexuality is same song, verse two.

Not sure what agency has to do with anything. We have our agency regardless of which laws might exist.

Why would such a moral precedent need to be enforced by the iron fist of government as opposed to the conscience? What good comes from forcing someone to make a righteous decision when they don't actually understand the significance of it? There have been arguments from both sides of any ideological conflict throughout the ages that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral, and I believe that commonly used line of reasoning stems from the fact that righteousness isn't taught by legislation, only social expectations are, and inevitably when government is used to attempt to accomplish that end is also when righteousness begins to be confused as being simply a social expectation. We see it today. The phenomenon has been around for at least 60+ years at this point, if not longer. Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[Just_A_Guy]

PoL, I don't think you can neatly parse out "government precedent" from "socially acceptable norms" anymore. The role of government in the life of everyday American citizens has just become too pervasive.

Moreover, if you equate discrimination against gays with discrimination against racial minorities--which seems to be the overall aim of the gay rights movement--then that's likely to have serious repercussions for the way the Church operates, if it maintains its position regarding the inherent sinfulness of gay sex. It's not that gay marriage creates a specific legal precedent per se; but the general normalization of the behavior and the assumption that those who indulge in it have a constitutional right not to be gainsaid.

[PrinceofLight2000]

PoL, I don't think you can neatly parse out "government precedent" from "socially acceptable norms" anymore. The role of government in the life of everyday American citizens has just become too pervasive.

As far as I can tell, you're making the same point I am, either that or you're missing the intended message of my previous post.

Moreover, if you equate discrimination against gays with discrimination against racial minorities--which seems to be the overall aim--then that's likely to have serious repercussions for the way the Church operates, if it maintains its position regarding the inherent sinfulness of gay sex.

I have no doubt that this position is held by a lot of crazies on the left, but it's certainly not my position and it's definitely not the only way to approach the issue. I hate and always will hate judicial activism. My comment was more about the spiritual futility of the restriction, not the apparent legal implications of allowing it.

[Vort]

Why would such a moral precedent need to be enforced by the iron fist of government as opposed to the conscience? What good comes from forcing someone to make a righteous decision when they don't actually understand the significance of it?

Fewer dead babies?

Are you also a foe of laws prohibiting rape, murder, drunken driving, and embezzling? Because your same questions could be asked of those laws, too.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Fewer dead babies?

Are you also a foe of laws prohibiting rape, murder, drunken driving, and embezzling? Because your same questions could be asked of those laws, too.

I stand with you on abortion in this position, but not gay marriage. I believe the government is only obligated to protect us from each other, effectively ruling out rape, murder (including abortion), drunk driving, and embezzlement, not to protect us from ourselves. Assuming we're of sound mental capacity, anyway.

[Vort]

I stand with you on abortion in this position, but not gay marriage. I believe the government is only obligated to protect us from each other, effectively ruling out rape, murder (including abortion), drunk driving, and embezzlement, not to protect us from ourselves. Assuming we're of sound mental capacity, anyway.

So then, you are a foe of anti-discrimination laws?

[Vort]

I stand with you on abortion in this position, but not gay marriage. I believe the government is only obligated to protect us from each other, effectively ruling out rape, murder (including abortion), drunk driving, and embezzlement, not to protect us from ourselves. Assuming we're of sound mental capacity, anyway.

To be clear, the point was toward your previous claim:

I'm wondering why on earth it matters if sins are legal or not when Heavenly Father is going to judge people how He wants anyway, and considering we're supposed to have agency?

I answered why it matters if sins are legal or not. I'm also wondering what "we're supposed to have agency" has to do with anything.

[Guest]

Can you think of any time in the scriptures that God was in the least apathetic about the laws of the land that the people lived by?

[Just_A_Guy]

As far as I can tell, you're making the same point I am, either that or you're missing the intended message of my previous post.

It must be the latter. It seems to me that you're saying "hey, morality and legality are two different things; so why are we bothering with the latter?"; to which I reply "hey, a lot of people are already conflating morality and legality; and government has been only too happy to aid and abet that process; and if government legalizes something then society as a whole is more likely to conclude that the thing is moral."

I have no doubt that this position is held by a lot of crazies on the left, but it's certainly not my position and it's definitely not the only way to approach the issue.

"Hey, I have no doubt that the position of racial integration is held by a lot of crazies in the Republican party; but it's certainly not my position and it's definitely not the only way to approach the issue." --Abraham Lincoln.

(OK, maybe he didn't say that in so many words; but he may as well have--he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa. Bottom line: Just because you don't plan for something to happen, doesn't mean that the people who are ultimately controlling your movement have similar intentions.)

My comment was more about the spiritual futility of the restriction, not the apparent legal implications of allowing it.

Point taken. :)

[PrinceofLight2000]

So then, you are a foe of anti-discrimination laws?

To be clear, the point was toward your previous claim:

I answered why it matters if sins are legal or not. I'm also wondering what "we're supposed to have agency" has to do with anything.

No. True discrimination would fall under the protecting us from each other category.

I'm saying that because we have agency, any legal penalties that protect us from ourselves are ultimately futile because they don't address the spiritual root of the problem at all. They are counterproductive because they conflate true righteousness with merely following social expectations, which undermines everything the Gospel tries to accomplish.

Can you think of any time in the scriptures that God was in the least apathetic about the laws of the land that the people lived by?

Can you think of any time in the scriptures that God took away agency and forced people to live righteously? And don't confuse it with presenting the consequences. There will always be spiritual consequences whether there are legal consequences or not, and ultimately anything God does in the scriptures is a spiritual consequence.

It must be the latter. It seems to me that you're saying "hey, morality and legality are two different things; so why are we bothering with the latter?"; to which I reply "hey, a lot of people are already conflating morality and legality; and government has been only too happy to aid and abet that process; and if government legalizes something then society as a whole is more likely to conclude that the thing is moral."

See Vort quote for better wording.

"Hey, I have no doubt that the position of racial integration is held by a lot of crazies in the Republican party; but it's certainly not my position and it's definitely not the only way to approach the issue." --Abraham Lincoln.

(OK, maybe he didn't say that in so many words; but he may as well have--he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa. Bottom line: Just because you don't plan for something to happen, doesn't mean that the people who are ultimately controlling your movement have similar intentions.)

I'm not responsible for other people's motivations.

[Guest]

I'm not satisfied with breaking God's law as a society and letting the chips fall. You say "consequences" as if they aren't a big deal. Famine, pestilence, destruction. . . no thank you.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm not satisfied with breaking God's law as a society and letting the chips fall. You say "consequences" as if they aren't a big deal. Famine, pestilence, destruction. . . no thank you.

Do we not believe that if we as individuals live righteously that we'll be blessed and spared? I couldn't care less what laws the government decides to pass when I know I'm in the right place committed to doing the right thing with others who are also doing so.

[Guest]

I don't believe that being passive about society's moral decay is being committed to doing the right thing.

[Dravin]

I couldn't care less what laws the government decides to pass when I know I'm in the right place committed to doing the right thing with others who are also doing so.

So...

I believe the government is only obligated to protect us from each other, effectively ruling out rape, murder (including abortion), drunk driving, and embezzlement, not to protect us from ourselves.

Given that you couldn't care less what laws the government decides to pass are we to take the, immediately, above as completely devoid of conviction? Are you not in the right place committed to doing the right thing with others who are doing so? Or, the most likely in my mind, are we engaging in a wee bit of hyperbole?

Edited December 29, 2013 by Dravin

[PrinceofLight2000]

I don't believe that being passive about society's moral decay is being committed to doing the right thing.

And I think that trying to enforce laws of this nature is using that commitment in all the wrong ways. Is it better to fine someone or put them in jail, or to actually teach them why what they're doing is spiritually destructive? Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[PrinceofLight2000]

So...

Given that you couldn't care less what laws the government passes are we to take the above as completely devoid of conviction? Or have you changed your position since you posted it?

I thought I made enough of a differentiation in my previous posts to allow for just an ounce of ambiguity, but apparently not. I didn't mean that I couldn't care less about ALL laws, only ones that assert that the government should protect us from ourselves.

[Dravin]

And I think that trying to enforce laws of this nature is using that commitment in all the wrong ways. Is it better to fine someone or put them in jail, or to actually teach them why what they're doing is spiritually destructive?

I'll take false dichotomy for $400, Alex.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'll take false dichotomy for $400, Alex.

The point there was to illustrate the abject lack of necessity of the former when the latter can be accomplished whether the former takes place or not, not to declare the two mutually exclusive. Although I still maintain that it generally skews the focus away from the spiritual aspects, at least insofar that prisons aren't penitentiaries, something that in all likelihood will remain true for a very long time. Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[Guest]

I'll take false dichotomy for $400, Alex.

You've got the Daily Double!

[Guest]

The point there was to illustrate the abject lack of necessity of the former when the latter can be accomplished whether the former takes place or not, not to declare the two mutually exclusive. Although I still maintain that it generally skews the focus away from the spiritual aspects.

And when the latter doesn't work (which it hasn't)?

[Guest]

Also there is the issue of children being "entitled" to a loving father AND mother, as set forth in the Proclamation to the World. Not to mention the last paragraph, which sets out the warning I referred to earlier.

[PrinceofLight2000]

And when the latter doesn't work (which it hasn't)?

Then nothing more can be done, whether the former is included or not. This is how agency works.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Also there is the issue of children being "entitled" to a loving father AND mother, as set forth in the Proclamation to the World. Not to mention the last paragraph, which sets out the warning I referred to earlier.

This situation would fall under the protecting us from each other category because the child is a third party without any capability of making their own decision. Same reasoning for abortion being illegal. I made my argument against the last part of your post earlier.