Prop 8 / Same-Sex Marriage Discussion

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

OR, the church could get ahead of this curve and fight for freedom of religious expression by pushing for a change in the laws with respect to the word “marriage”. This is how other countries have handled it. If two people want to get “married” they get a civil union license from the state. For most that’s it, but for the religious, they can then go get married by their respective clergy, but this marriage is only ceremonial; clergy do not have the power from the state to legally create a civil union. In countries where this is the law, the church waives the one year wait period to get sealed in the temple.

Exactly right!! It amazes me that the leaders don’t go for this simple solution, especially given the experience we have with the priesthood. If what they’re doing is revelation from God then I have no reasonable explanation. To me this solution is so plainly obvious it needs no confirming revelation. We have a plethora of examples to go on, as well as our own experience.

[Anonymous]

There are so many problems with this, IMO.

*When you fight against something you make it stronger. This whole battle is generating HATE.

*If you judge people, you have no time to love them. ~Mother Theresa

*We have been commanded to care for the poor. The resources spent on this battle are wasted.

Also, didn’t want to hijack the JS thread so I’ll add it here. SSM is different from polygamy for the same reason monogomy is different from polygamy. I don’t think monogomous marriages can be compared to polygamous. I’m not saying that SSM is the exact same as hetero marriage, but there are a lot more comonalities with those two that polygamy. JMHO.

I’m sick of hearing how gays are trying to destroy the family (at church). IMO families are doing a pretty good job of that on their own. People need to focus on their problems and fix from within.

[Anonymous]

I totally respect that this is an emotional topic.

But I haven’t read or seen anything from the church that would make it hatemongering. The material on the website I read was very sensitively written, and invited all to live up to the standards the church believes are important, but also calls for all people to be tolerant.

What did the church do wrong?

If the church taught polygamy in the past, and had a literal army march against it to stop its practice, why is it now not ok for the church to stand up and say it will not change on the traditional definition of marriage based on religious freedoms?

Doesn’t Mother Teresa’s quote apply to Mormon beliefs as well?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

The material on the website I read was very sensitively written, and invited all to live up to the standards the church believes are important, but also calls for all people to be tolerant.

This is the very first quote from the lds website by Oaks:

ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable.

I’m sorry to disagree, Heber, but THAT statement is NOT sensitive. We all know what he means “normal” is, so not only is he demeaning homosexuals, but he is also demeaning single parents, grandparents who are raising grandchildren, stay at home dads, etc.

I don’t think I have to “characterize” this statement as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. It IS narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable.

Narrow-minded in the sense that there are already thousands of homosexual couples raising children in a totally “normal’ way. And I’m sure those homosexual parents will be AT LEAST as successful as my TBM parents were.

Bigoted by the very definition of bigotry.

Websters (from Dictionary.net): 2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Unreasonable in the face of defining what “normal” is. Normal is a man and a woman? A man and several women? A man and a stay at home mom? A stay at home dad and a mom? Just a mom? Just a dad? Grandparents? Adopted parents? If you follow the logic of Elder Oaks, we should all be striving for normal. That is God’s way. That is Christ’s way. Obviously, I’m being facetious. Normal is, in fact, unreasonable in the face of real life.

“Invited to live the standards the church believes are important.”

There is a great literary term for this but I don’t know what it is. Some sort of fallacy. My point: the church is endeavoring to make it IMPOSSIBLE to live the standards. The standard is “no sexual relations outside marriage”. Of course, by keeping homosexuals from ever being allowed to marry, by default you’re making it literally impossible to live those standards. It was the same 35 years ago: a white and an african-american could not get sealed in the temple because it was not “normal” or God’s way, or it was unnatural. All of the exact same terminology that is being used today.

Sorry for the emotion. I’m trying.

[Anonymous]

swimordie, I appreciate that you’re trying…and so will I.

I feel there is a double standard. If I believe homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that I shouldn’t be able to say what is right or wrong for other people, then we have a disagreement. Why am I a bigot and you are not? (not you or I personally, but the church and pro-gay marriage groups). Having an opinion about what you think is right or even normal is not bigotry.

I find it interesting you used the second definition from the dictionary that seems to make your point. What was the first?

Here is one definition (only saw one in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Quote:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Without getting into dictionary wars, I think it crosses the line into bigotry when it is “hateful”. Would you agree? I don’t sense that from the church. I do sense that from the opposition to the church. While I have no agenda on homosexuality in the church, and wish church members could be more open minded, I do feel it unfair the church is unable to exercise free speech without being unfairly attacked (IMO). I don’t read any statements from President Hinckley, Elder Oaks or others from the church that have any feeling of hatred. Only trying to establish their doctrine. And if the church goes through legal processes through the democratic system to lobby for what is in its self-interest, that is the American way, and I will support the law when the factions who support gay marriage muster enough support to overturn Prop 8, because of Article of Faith#12. Will they be called bigots from the church when that happens? Do you see the double standard?

Here is the understanding I sensed from the church statement:

Elder Wickman:

Quote:

I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage. What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.

Is this offensive to some to compare gender attraction to handicaps? Some would be offended by that. I’m sure some handicapped folks would be offended by them being offended that they would be so bigotted to think things of handicapped people.

We cannot live in society without tolerance and mutual respect. Why is it the church is not allowed to follow the legal process to protect its interests?

I’m honestly open to trying to understand this issue, and realize it is highly charged with emotions. I just want to understand why SSM is different than any other doctrine in the church, such as fornication in the law of chastity?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I feel there is a double standard. If I believe homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that I shouldn’t be able to say what is right or wrong for other people, then we have a disagreement. Why am I a bigot and you are not? (not you or I personally, but the church and pro-gay marriage groups). Having an opinion about what you think is right or even normal is not bigotry.

Thank you Heber for your example of fair-mindedness in your post. I’m still developing my on-line voice to be more fair-minded.

I absolutely recognize the double standard but I would say that THE emotionally charged issue is choice. If you are “born” with SSA, do you “choose” to be gay?

The reason that Elder Wickman’s statement is troubling is what he says at the end:

Heber13 wrote:

What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed.

The “hindrances” for homosexuals is a man created obstacle. For someone who is blind or autistic or quadrapalegic, these are uncontrollable natural forces, with the hope of a restoration in the Resurrection of Christ. Imho, homosexuals could experience the fullness of joy if we just accepted them and included them, as they were created by a loving Heavenly Father.

I saw a fascinating movie a couple weeks ago in the theater, and there was a section that actually discussed indepth some interesting commonalities for handicapped people and transgender people. Of course, the commonalities have nothing to do with treating transgender people as “handicapped” but that transgender people feel discrimination in similar ways to handicapped. Not sure when it might be available on DVD.

Thank you again, Heber for continuing to engage this discussion. I value and respect your viewpoint.

[Anonymous]

To follow-up on what Heber13 and swimordie both said, the root of this issue in almost everyone’s mind really is the way that the Church defines homosexual activity as sin – but that’s not the root in my mind.

I can’t remember if I said this somewhere on this site or Mormon Matters or somewhere else, but my most fundamental, foundational issue when it comes to the way homosexuality is addressed in the Church is that there really is a double standard in place right now – NOT the one that many people assume, but a real and important one, nonetheless.

First, based on the way that the Church addresses “fornication” in all its forms, I think it is a HUGE stretch for the leadership to accept homosexual sexual intercourse and the other old terms they use when talking about “things like unto it”. (petting, necking, etc.) Frankly, if they are asking unmarried heterosexual members to abstain from that type of activity, I have no problem with them asking unmarried homosexual members to do likewise. (I understand the eternal implications fully, but since I believe in communal sealing and cooperative creation of spirit children, I couldn’t care less if sexual orientation is eternal or not. If there’s no sexual intercourse in the hereafter, but rather intimacy and full communal unity, why would it matter?)

The issue for me is that the Church’s current position, while MUCH better than it has been in the past (especially since it openly admits that sexual orientation often is not a choice but rather is biological and strong), is that there still is a double standard. Heterosexual members are allowed to develop an intimate relationship with someone of the opposite sex in many ways – as long as specific lines are not crossed. Those lines are drawn so narrowly for homosexual members, however, that developing an intimate relationship with a member of the same sex is next to impossible – even if the “heterosexual lines” are never crossed.

For example, I was able to hold hands with my girlfriend, kiss her, sit arm in arm, gaze into her eyes, etc. – all in public. Iow, I was able to show my affection and love for her in various ways without ever crossing into any inappropriate activity. If I or she had a condition of some sort that made actual intercourse impossible, we still could have gotten married and continued to develop an intimate relationship and truly become one in EVERY way imaginable EXCEPT that one activity. That still is not true for homosexual members. They are asked to avoid that type of loving, intimate bond – even if they never cross the lines that would be considered inappropriate for heterosexual members.

I believe that it is this discrepancy that lies at the heart of the issue for the Church – and that if they simply eliminated that double standard, the discussion would change in fundamental ways. Frankly, most gay people I know and from whom I have heard have little interest in “marriage”. If civil unions carried equal legal protections and rights, most of them would be perfectly satisfied. It’s the second class citizen aspect of a double standard to which they (rightly, imo) object.

I believe there is a workable and equitable compromise available – the one that works so well generally in other countries that allow civil unions with full civil rights.

Finally, I really do think “activists” (and even just those who are invested emotionally at a very deep level) forget what Heber13 correctly identified in his comment – that “bigotry” (like “racism”) loses its potency and core meaning when it is thrown about too loosely and slapped on people who really don’t “hate” those with whom they disagree. In practical terms, “bigot” comes to mean “someone who disagrees with me about something that is important to me” – which becomes a double standard just as wrong and destructive as the double standard I mentioned above for gay members.

If you are interested, I wrote a couple of posts about reviling immediately following the election and Prop 8 vote last November. It was my perspective as a Mormon who voted for Pres. Obama but would have voted for Prop 8 if I had lived in CA (because I want civil unions for all). I got “reviled” by people on both “sides” – and the posts are about that irony:

Recognizing and Removing the Roots of Reviling (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/11/learning-from-proposition-8-recognizing.html)

Humility: The Foundation of Not Reviling (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/11/humility-foundation-of-not-reviling.html)

[Anonymous]

Both of you have great comments. I honestly believe if the activist and church groups could speak with mutual respect to each other like I hear in the tone of both your comments, they could actually see that there is probably an overlap and agreement of 90% of the issue, and it is only the last 10% that could be worked out better (like Ray’s proposal on civil rights) if they stop throwing around the terms and the over-exaggerated attacks, which I believe they feel they need to do make their voice heard. And believe me, I don’t think mormons are the excluded from that generalization.

Of course, Israel and Palestine might be able to make progress if they could do that too…but that ain’t happenin’ either.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I totally respect that this is an emotional topic.

But I haven’t read or seen anything from the church that would make it hatemongering. The material on the website I read was very sensitively written, and invited all to live up to the standards the church believes are important, but also calls for all people to be tolerant.

What did the church do wrong?

If the church taught polygamy in the past, and had a literal army march against it to stop its practice, why is it now not ok for the church to stand up and say it will not change on the traditional definition of marriage based on religious freedoms?

Doesn’t Mother Teresa’s quote apply to Mormon beliefs as well?

That was actually my point. Both sides (those fighting) are doing nothing more than making the other side stronger. They are also building and perpetuating hate/fear/judgement.

I think that it is really sad that the Church got people to donate more money to this cause than feeding the hungry. That actually makes me a little ill.

I agree that the stuff on LDS.org is done in a way that they tried to be sensitive. However, suggesting that mothers not allow their gay children around if they have their partner with them is where I felt icky.

Having members brought in for interviews for differing political views also gives me an icky feeling.

Protestors outside the temple makes me feel icky, too. So do burning BoM’s in front of meeting houses. So does graffiti on the temple.

There is nothing virtous, lovely or of good report in this whole thing.

The Church and its members can do whatever they want. Gay rights activists can also do whatever they want.

My idea of what Christ would have his church focus on is very different from this.

[Anonymous]

just me, I agree with almost all of what you said. I’ll only comment on three things – and nit-pick about two of them:

1) “I think that it is really sad that the Church got people to donate more money to this cause than feeding the hungry.” They don’t. They spend staggeringly huge amounts of resources on feeding the hungry and improving the lives of the poor every year – absolutely staggering amounts that dwarf the Prop 8 contributions. They don’t publicize those dollar totals, but they truly are mind-boggling.

2) “However, suggesting that mothers not allow their gay children around if they have their partner with them is where I felt icky.” AMEN! That’s part of the double standard I mentioned.

3) “Having members brought in for interviews for differing political views also gives me an icky feeling.” That should not have happened. Sometimes local leaders go way beyond the directions that are given initially from the top. The lay leadership structure is one of my favorite aspects of Mormonism, but it also drives me nuts more than just about anything else.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

just me, I agree with almost all of what you said. I’ll only comment on three things – and nit-pick about two of them:

1) “I think that it is really sad that the Church got people to donate more money to this cause than feeding the hungry.” They don’t. They spend staggeringly huge amounts of resources on feeding the hungry and improving the lives of the poor every year – absolutely staggering amounts that dwarf the Prop 8 contributions. They don’t publicize those dollar totals, but they truly are mind-boggling.

2) “However, suggesting that mothers not allow their gay children around if they have their partner with them is where I felt icky.” AMEN! That’s part of the double standard I mentioned.

3) “Having members brought in for interviews for differing political views also gives me an icky feeling.” That should not have happened. Sometimes local leaders go way beyond the directions that are given initially from the top. The lay leadership structure is one of my favorite aspects of Mormonism, but it also drives me nuts more than just about anything else.

I’m sure we agree more than disagree.

Do you have any sources or numbers for point #1? Because I would love to prove myself wrong on this one. However, it will be hard what with the 2.5bil mall and all. None of the numbers I have seen are staggering at all. Sadly. From my research the Church spends about 1% on humanitarian funds.

I would love to see a comparison chart for the months that money was raised for P8.

[Anonymous]

just me, there’s no way to soften or sugarcoat this, so I will be direct. The 1% is a straw man figure that got circulated by some anti-Mormons a few years ago and has stuck. It is an estimate of what percent of TITHING funds gets donated as CASH donations to charitable causes. That’s a horribly stacked deck to begin with, for numerous reasons.

I posted the following comment in response to a similar statement on BCC a little while ago:

Quote:

That’s an incredibly slanted way to frame the giving the Church does, as it totally ignores in real numbers all of the non-cash contributions provided – which are quite massive when put into a dollar amount. When you add the worth of food distributed through the Bishop’s Storehouse and total fast offering contributions into the mix (which must be done to give a more accurate view of “charitable giving” – especially when being compared to other religious organizations), the stats change radically. [Not in the BCC comment, but think about this: My ward alone provides multiple thousands of dollars per year in charitable assistance through the Bishop’s Storehouse – and that doesn’t even account for the cash payments for rent, utilities, food, etc. that also go to members and non-members in need. Multiply what the Church gives out ONLY in this way – which truly is “charitable giving” – across the thousands of wards and branches in the Church, and that amount alone EACH YEAR is staggering. Then, add all the in-kind donations the Church provides in cases of emergency and on-going need . . .]

Also, to compare charitable contributions to tithing is a false dichotomy. It appears to claim that the Church actually uses tithing as a primary funder of charitable assistance, when it does not. Tithing is used for other purposes, and the only reason for comparing the two is to complain about how much the Church spends on non-charitable things – like building temples. It pits charitable donations against temples – and that is a landmine issue for those who don’t think temples are all that important. When the mall is included (or any other commercial endeavor), the implication is that tithing money is the source of that development – another false claim.

Summary: The Church never has claimed to give huge amounts of cash for charitable donations – and it doesn’t include the fast offering distributions in its reports on charitable giving; it has, in fact, stated explicitly that it prefers to give tangible resources in lieu of cash. To focus strictly on its cash donations – and to pit temple building against cash welfare assistance – and to mix indiscriminately religious, charitable and commercial endeavors as if they were the same thing funded through the same pot, therefore, is an inherent set up for failure – a stacked deck from the very beginning.

Also, the Church has said repeatedly that the mall was funded from the commercial endeavors of the Corporation of the First Presidency – not from tithing or other “religious” funds. It’s purely a business venture, so I’m cool with it – if it ends up being profitable. (Obviously, I have no problem with the Church being a religious organization with massive commercial holdings.)

The summary point is that “the Church” as an institution spent very little on Prop 8 – and Mormons spent a little over $20 million. When you consider ONLY the Bishop’s Storehouse and other fast offering distributions, “the Church” donates FAR more (exponentially more) each year on charitable giving than it did on Prop 8 – and Mormons donate more in fast offering funds each year than they spent on Prop 8. The 1% claim is seriously flawed and, really, a terrible argument.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

But I haven’t read or seen anything from the church that would make it hatemongering. The material on the website I read was very sensitively written, and invited all to live up to the standards the church believes are important, but also calls for all people to be tolerant.

Culture, culture, culture!!

Doesn’t matter what they put on the website if the members don’t act like it, and the culture breeds bigotry (which it does). Even in the way we talk about it (something to “overcome,” a “burden,” “struggle with” same sex attraction like it’s some sort of disease). Admittedly, not all of this is the church’s false. Christianity in general seems to breed this culture (ironically).

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

If I believe homosexuality is wrong, and you believe that I shouldn’t be able to say what is right or wrong for other people, then we have a disagreement.

Well, this comes down to a fundamental belief. Yes, we will have a disagreement. For me, personally, I believe that “saying what is right or wrong for other people” is similar to the method in Satan’s plan. Aside from that, it is not the foundation that this country rests on. We believe in personal freedom and it is enshrined in the constitution. If someone can demonstrate reliably that allowing gays to marry will strip the church of its tax exempt status then we have a new discussion. But to my knowledge, this can’t be done, and hence the “yes on prop 8″ers are pushing their moral agenda on others. To me, this is fundamentally immoral. If you can show that allowing someone to do something directly infringes on the rights of others then you have a leg to stand on, but otherwise…

Note what Ray said from another thread:

Ray wrote:

It is SO hard for many people to truly give up the idea that they know what’s best for everyone else.

Heber13 wrote:

I do feel it unfair the church is unable to exercise free speech without being unfairly attacked (IMO).

Now this is definitely true. I do not in any way, shape, or form condone the actions of activists groups. This shouldn’t be tolerated, and our right to voice our opinion should not only hold water, but should vociferously be defended. But realize that it was a two way street. It wasn’t just activists doing the attacking. I don’t know the extent of specific Mormons involved, but there were plenty of “yes on Prop 8″ers who were attacking.

Re:Ray and donations to the poor.

Ray wrote:

They don’t publicize those dollar totals, but they truly are mind-boggling.

If they don’t publicize them, how do you know? Just curious. I appreciate your post to BCC attacking the argument, and your points are valid, and I’m not complaining about the 1%, or the mall (although I think the mall thing is just silly), but you still didn’t give any specifics. From an objective standpoint I don’t see how we can accept your arguments as any more than speculation. We still have no idea how much the church spends on donations to the poor. But that’s not even “just me”‘s point (I think). I thought her point was that the members in CA gave more to Prop 8 than to helping the poor. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but at least that money could have gone to help the poor. In either case, it’s silly to speculate since we just don’t know. But, I do know that I get a weekly email from protectmarriage.com continually asking me for more money since they’re going to have to fight this all the way to the supreme court. Look for this issue to be around for a long time!! At least the church isn’t asking me to donate anymore.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The summary point is that “the Church” as an institution spent very little on Prop 8 – and Mormons spent a little over $20 million.

There’s alot of web-sites listing every individual donor and some of them have researched every individual donor and come up with conservative estimates that is about double the $20 million from LDS members. And Prop 102 in AZ was roughly another $20 million from members.

Obviously, what people choose to do with their money is their choice. I have no problem with that. But realistically, if homosexuals saw these numbers, or if that 13 year old deacon in San Diego who recognized his own SSA, saw those numbers, what is the conclusion to be drawn?

[Author]

Posts