Prop 8 / Same-Sex Marriage Discussion

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Although you haven’t given any reason why the proposed solution of having the gov’t not be involved in marriage altogether, having only civil contracts, and allowing you, religion, and everyone else to define marriage how they want.

Yes, I actually agree that this seems to be the best solution…get the government out of it and let everyone believe what they want, and I can believe what I want.

jmb275 wrote:

However, I must point out that this statement is the ultimate irony of your argument. You don’t want others to dictate to you what your rules need to be, but you are okay dictating to homosexuals what their rules need to be?

I guess that is fair to say…although I originally thought what I was saying was the current definition of marriage has always been man and woman…homosexuality has always been around throughout history, but marriage (as far as I know) has always been defined as man and woman and now gay couples want to change that. So I didn’t view it as me dictating anything to homosexuals, only trying to protect the current system from others dictating the change to me.

[Anonymous]

Marriage has changed throughout history. I’m sure some cultures didn’t even have “marriage” as we term it, but recognized family units. I am interested to learn more about the history of marriage.

HOWEVER, why do you think marriage needed to be maintained the way we have it? Because women had no rights under many cultures. A woman HAD to be married to a man-which pretty much made her his property. The marraige of two women would in no way afford any rights-where would that leave them? Destitute?

A man had a responsibility to society and his family to create offspring and support a women (or women). He had to have hiers to leave his property to. It also makes children property of the father. Without marriage children are bastards (historically speaking).

Marriages were not for love. They were arranged for social reasons. Often the husband (or wife) had other relationships to fulfill those other needs.

There were even groups of people denied the right to marry. I think black slaves were not allowed to marry. They “jumped over the broom” instead. Do you think God did not recognize those couples? Marriage has always been more of a legal commitment-it is a contract.

I would hope that we have evolved as a society enough to realize that a woman has rights and is not property.

Let’s look at the religious aspects of LDS temple marriage.

A woman still is viewed as needing to go through her husband to receive celestial glory. He is her middle man. A woman goes through her husband at the veil. She harkens to her husband not directly to Christ. Sure, they’ve changed the wording a little in recent years, but a woman is still seen as needing to go through her husband to get to Christ. I guess women can’t be trusted to have their own relationship with God after that fruit fiasco…but wait, don’t we view the Fall as good?

We’ve also stripped and denied all the priesthood previously recognized in an endowed woman. We stress how wonderful and important it is to have “the priesthood in the home.” Two women in a relationship would lack the priesthood (according to the modern church). Two men would have the trouble of figuring out who was the patriarch of the home. The veil ceremony and order of prayer present issues for SS couples the way they are currently performed.

Oh maybe we would have to actually realize the equality of man and woman! We pay it lip service now, but we do not actually believe it.

I guess I just am not seeing the evolution of marriage as a bad thing. It has been evolving ever since it was invented.

I will also add that if your children are not BIC then you have to “adopt” them through sealing. They are not considered inheritors of the PH. This is according to Brigham Young, but the practice remains.

HAHA! These are my random thoughts on marriage.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

I will also add that if your children are not BIC then you have to “adopt” them through sealing. They are not considered inheritors of the PH. This is according to Brigham Young, but the practice remains.

We can put this kind of spin on lots of the practices and teachings of our church. But doing that seems counter to the goal of enjoying being LDS. How does it move us forward to cackle about how wacko and inconsistent our church is? It seems at the least that is alienating to our loved ones, and at the most it is harmful to our envisioned peace with and joy in the church.

You all know I am as outspoken as any about aspects of our church I sincerely believe to be harmful. But I hope I feel the pain of my loved ones even in having to point out those items.

Tom

[Anonymous]

I sincerely apologize if my post came across as spin and mocking. I have the habit of “thinking” out loud (ie typing all my thoughts out).

This is how I process ideas and beliefs and test them. As I wrote that post my thoughts evolved just how they were written and it wasn’t until I got to the bottom that I started to see how very inconsistent it all is. It was very helpful and enlightening to me. I’m sorry if it was hurtful for anyone else.

I am a heretic, after all.

[Anonymous]

Thinking through things is a Good Thing. You’re ok.

[Anonymous]

Tom, I just realized it was my sarcasm that was probably seen as mocking. I didn’t even realize I did it. 😳 I will work on that. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

We’ve also stripped and denied all the priesthood previously recognized in an endowed woman. We stress how wonderful and important it is to have “the priesthood in the home.” Two women in a relationship would lack the priesthood (according to the modern church). Two men would have the trouble of figuring out who was the patriarch of the home. The veil ceremony and order of prayer present issues for SS couples the way they are currently performed.

This is precisely the philosophical paradigm shift I was talking about before. It goes WAY beyond just SSA and SSM but gets into gender roles, gender identification, pre-mortal/post-mortal gender, eternal consequences, or lack thereof, of gender, gender of God, as unity with Mother-God or as unity with the other members of the trinity and each entities respective gender. (Does the Holy Ghost have a gender?)

The natural world is a hodge-podge of gender and gender roles and not just for reproduction. There is asexual reproduction as well as communal-type reproduction. If God’s idea was one man/one woman and this is the perfect paradigm, why so many variations of this in the natural world? (In fact, the EXCEPTION in the natural world is life-long monogamy; I know wolves and geese are monogamous for life, generally)

I’m rambling but what I mean is that I have come to a place where I understand how acceptance or acknowledgment of SSA/SSM may feel like it requires a philosophical paradigm shift of which the current GA’s are not willing to confront in their lifetimes. And, I hope this doesn’t sound unfair, but the greatest religious and spiritual leaders of history DID have to make the difficult paradigm changing decisions and they are loved and reviled for it by subsequent generations. Just my thought.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I have personal knowledge of how difficult it is for apostles and prophets to walk the line between caring for the 99 (“The Church”) and the 1 (the struggling member). This is one area where there simply isn’t revelation yet – where more apostles and prophets than people think are trying to understand how to do more but simply can’t move without clear revelation. Personally, I really believe the church membership in general simply isn’t ready for the kind of revelation it would take to make a significant change – that the tree can’t grow faster than the root on this one. I believe it really would splinter the Church if it was pushed before the membership was ready.

I know how painful and frustrating that is to many members (and to some of the top leadership), but I take comfort in my belief that our overall theology and historical practices give us paradigms that can make such revelation possible in the future – even though it might not go as far as some would want.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I have personal knowledge of how difficult it is for apostles and prophets to walk the line between caring for the 99 (“The Church”) and the 1 (the struggling member).

I disagree with the entire concept of caring for the 99 while caring for the 1. Every thing we do should be about caring for the one. If it’s not, I think we have lost track of the Gospel of Christ. In my mind, if we are caring about the 99, we are more interested in the organization than in the individual. That, to me, is the antithesis of Christ’s life and example. I would ask, who is the 1? Am I the 1? Are you? Aren’t each of us “the 1”? This, I think, is a paradox I’m not comfortable with. I think it exists in humanity due to our own weaknesses, and desire for control.

Sorry to detract from the discussion here. Carry on!

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

However, I must point out that this statement is the ultimate irony of your argument. You don’t want others to dictate to you what your rules need to be, but you are okay dictating to homosexuals what their rules need to be?

I guess that is fair to say…although I originally thought what I was saying was the current definition of marriage has always been man and woman…homosexuality has always been around throughout history, but marriage (as far as I know) has always been defined as man and woman and now gay couples want to change that. So I didn’t view it as me dictating anything to homosexuals, only trying to protect the current system from others dictating the change to me.

Well, here, I think we have to separate the issues. We currently are “dictating” the rules because the fact is, homosexuals are not equal with respect to the “state.” We more forcefully dictated the rules by inscribing the definition in the constitution of CA. The homosexual civil union is less than the heterosexual marriage. As long as gov’t is involved there will be inequality unless we change the definition of marriage. I’m okay with keeping the definition of marriage the same, as long as everyone gets to define what marriage means . But when the state decides, now an injustice is created unless that definition includes everyone. I’m okay with that too, that is, opening up the definition to include everyone. But given the fact that it makes the religious folk upset, an easy solution is just get rid of the term altogether. Plus it pushes gov’t further out of my life, which I’m almost always in favor of.

We should have equality, in label, in rights, and in culture. Culturally, the gov’t can do nothing. But they can for the other two. What we have done (at least in CA), is enshrine inequality in the constitution.

[Anonymous]

jmb275, I think we will have to disagree on this one. The leadership of any organization simply has to care about and for the organization. It’s caring for the individuals in the organization that generally doesn’t happen – and it always is a difficult walk for those who really are trying to do both.

Even in a group as small as an immediate family, there sometimes is a real and legitimate tension between protecting the family and caring for every single member of it.

I’m not saying that the way we currently are handling homosexuality is a good protection method – not at all. I’m just saying that I think it is impossible for any organization to care ONLY about the individuals and not care also for the organization as a whole – and that it often is not an easy balance to strike properly.

[Anonymous]

“…leave the 99 in the wilderness and go search for the one that is lost.” I think that is what faith and singleness of view are all about. Unfortunately, what I call the Rough Stone Rolling effect (see Bushman) is that in the process of building an earthly kingdom, we lose the essence–the plainness and pricelessness–of the Kindgom of God. You can’t have it both ways. You have to choose which one you want.

Now, how to enjoy staying LDS given that truth. Love? Hmm.

[Anonymous]

The comparison to a shepherd is one of my fondest teachings from Christ.

I do not believe the sheep are all allowed to just roam in whatever direction they want and the shepherd must run from individual sheep to individual sheep, wherever they may be or want to go. But instead, the shepherd truly loves and cares for the sheep by protecting them from harm and wild animals that want to grab them, so the shepherd learns each of their names, calls them, and the sheep follow his voice, and he sometimes builds up walls or pens to protect the group from the outside dangers and from being lost if left wandering on their own. The Shepherd leads in front of the flock, and they follow him/her.

When the 1 strays, the true shepherd will go to find the 1, and leave the 99 to stay together and protect themselves for a short time while the shepherd finds the 1.

When finding the 1, the shepherd brings that lost one back to the fold with the other 99 and back to safety.

If the Priesthood leadership are to be true followers of Christ, they must be concerned with the 1, and love them and teach them and invite them back to the fold of the body of the church, where they can be taught, loved, and nourished. I think that includes both the concern for the 99 that need to be led, and the concern for the 1, caring for the whole 100, just in different ways and with different needs.

You can’t let the individual overthrow the organization of the many, nor can you let the organization fail to meet the needs of the one. But that can be different then establishing the rules (including marriage). The rules are established for protection and individuals are asked to stay within that progection. The loving and caring of individuals happen inside or outside the rules, and the rules should be taught with love, so that all understand the rules and how what they protect us from. IOW, I see having a rule that asks from some conformity can be a separate issue than loving and caring for the needs of the individual.

We’ve talked a lot on this topic of the church having fear SSM will break down families, the church, and ultimately society. That seems to be what the church is teaching. I’m still studying to see if there is some reason that teaching should not hold up to protect our children, since it is often the young lambs that stray and get themselves in danger. So what are the dangers of SSM? Do we have a list?

[Anonymous]

Wow! You guys are all so brainy! I love it!

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I have personal knowledge of how difficult it is for apostles and prophets to walk the line between caring for the 99 (“The Church”) and the 1 (the struggling member).

This is exactly why I felt compelled to resign. And I also recognize that it’s the exact reason that the brethren can’t/won’t/choose not to change. It’s the mother of all dilemmas. (or father or genderless parent 😆 )

jmb275 wrote:

We should have equality, in label, in rights, and in culture. Culturally, the gov’t can do nothing. But they can for the other two. What we have done (at least in CA), is enshrine inequality in the constitution.

And, unfortunately, now enshrined in mormon doctrine/theology. (yes, I know, lots of other religions, too)

Heber13 wrote:

I’m still studying to see if there is some reason that teaching should not hold up to protect our children, since it is often the young lambs that stray and get themselves in danger. So what are the dangers of SSM? Do we have a list?

Personally, I feel (know ) that there are NO “dangers” of SSM. Sure, the jury may still be out on whether a same-sex couple is not as “ideal” as a opposite-sex couple for MODELING parenting (since over 95% of parent couples are opposite-sex and a similar percentage of children of same-sex couples are heterosexual). But modeling parenting and actual parenting are two different things. As an example, my parents were the perfect model TBM parents (we all know the image 🙄 ). However, they did a very poor job of actual parenting, if by parenting you mean building emotionally healthy adult individuals. I know that there’s alot more to parenting but, imho, this one area is more important than all the others combined. Because it is the only true course to happiness.

But, there are fear-mongering (sorry for the heavy term but that’s what I think it is) reasons that have been used to attack SSM, all of which I believe are disturbingly misguided:

Adopted children of SS couples are more likely to “become” homosexual.

Social studies classes will have to include a SS couple as a “normal” option for a family unit thus confusing children into thinking that homosexuality is “normal” and therefore making children “become” homosexual.

All homosexuals are pedophiles so by giving them equal protection, access, etc., they will become pre-school teachers, little league coaches and boy scout leaders, molesting tons of kids and turning them all into homosexuals.

Legalizing SSM will force religions to perform SSM ceremonies or risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only way that God intended, laid out in the pre-existent plan, all the way through the eternities of heavenly existence. (“It’s not Adam and Steve”)

Just look at nature, to procreate you have to have a male and a female.

Sorry for the tone of the list, but this is how it sounds to me when I hear it.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

Heber13 wrote:I’m still studying to see if there is some reason that teaching should not hold up to protect our children, since it is often the young lambs that stray and get themselves in danger. So what are the dangers of SSM? Do we have a list?

I hope I didn’t kill this thread with my last post. I didn’t intend to be inflammatory (stage 3) 😳

Maybe someone else can answer Heber’s question with a list that is less rhetorically challenged.

[Author]

Posts