05-30-2006, 03:39 AM | #1 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I find it a bit disappointing that the Proclamation basically offers zero guidance to those saints (and their families) who struggle with same sex attraction. Why?
This sentence is so vague, that it gives almost no direction: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." What is an essential characteristic? Meaning that if someone did not have a gender, he would be screwed? I see nothing in that document that gives any guidance on what the laws of the land ought to be. We can say that we have *now* been given guidance--that there ought to be an amendment (can someone provide me a link to the language of the amendment?). Why weren't the words included in the news release? What if the language of the amendment is changed, are they going to issue a new press release, instructing us on whether our support is still warranted? The church played footsie with the issue in the state of Utah. They were coy, until they finally came down and basically endorsed the proposition. Why the coyness? Battles are best fought with prepared soldiers. It seems to me that the preparation has been very slight. Good soldiers go and die whether the cause is right or not, whether the plan is good or not, and whether it makes a difference or not. I wish the brethren would jump into this and very clearly articulate their reasoning, including addressing some of the concerns that I and others have. Some will argue that this is just a test of faith. Perhaps. But the church I know is one that advocates that we study things out before acting. And that is the unsatisfying part to me. How unstudied this all feels. |
05-30-2006, 03:59 AM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Having read the letter again, the First Presidency doesn't even tell us which view to take.
"We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate." One of my first impressions is that there tend to be unintended consequences when you change something that is very vital and important (e.g. the Constitution). So I would want to hear about the unitended consequences of such an amendment, before I would even consider supporting it. So that is my opinion that I will express. "Changing the constitution is a grave matter, and I wouldn't expect you or anyone to make any changes without weeks or months of careful study and consideration." |
05-30-2006, 05:23 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
If you find it unstudied, then study. Here is the wikipedia link to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment You'll see the langugae is relatively simpole, although it raises many questions, as would any potential amendment of a substantive nature. (I also think that polygamy would not necessarily be prohibited by this language, as All-American suggested elsewhere). SOme also believe it may not prohibit civil unions on a state by state basis. SO read up, but also pray about it. THen do what you truly believe is right.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
05-30-2006, 12:22 PM | #4 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
The article states that it is unclear whether the amendment would prohibit states from having civil unions.
I want an amendment that unambiguously would allow civil unions to be enacted by states, should they choose. I have no idea what "institution" conservatives are protecting by fighting civil unions. Seems like a form of cruelty and bigotry to me. |
05-30-2006, 02:06 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 961
|
Quote:
Mike, there is nothing special about the word 'marriage.' A rose by any other name... the LDS church sees gay marriage as an assault on the FAMILY. Changing the name to 'civil union,' if it was a genuinely equal institution, would make it no less an assault on family. Good luck changing the church from within. I hope your letters do some good. Last edited by Robin; 05-30-2006 at 02:19 PM. |
|
05-30-2006, 02:46 PM | #6 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
05-30-2006, 02:51 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Anyone saying today that this amendment would not prohibit civil unions does not have a clue how the judiciary works. The short answer: WE DON'T KNOW, and we won't know for several years after it passes (which, incidentally, isn't going to happen anyways). |
|
05-30-2006, 02:52 PM | #8 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
Which is not surprising, since we rarely discuss things like polygamy. I do not recall ever hearing any sort of discussion on polygamy at church. Other than a passing reference. |
|
05-30-2006, 02:58 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Maybe, just maybe the decision to set aside the practice of polygamy really had more to do with obeying the will of the Lord and less to do with the persecution suffered.
Then perhaps we could let go of this whole notion of hypocrasy ... There is nothing hypocritical in obeying the will of the Lord. Furthermore, when a Bishop is instructed to read a letter from the prophet and first presidency, from the pulpit, he is acting as the voice of the Lord: D&C 1:38 Such an event is substantially different than a hypothetical shoot the breeze with Gordon B. Hinckley around the dinner table discussion. Last edited by tooblue; 05-30-2006 at 03:03 PM. |
05-30-2006, 03:04 PM | #10 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
However, there is something hypocritical about arguing that polygamists shouldn't be imprisoned, and then later when you no longer practice polygamy, argue that polygamists should indeed be in prison.
Yes, I've heard the counter argument. Polygamy wasn't originally illegal, now it is. And on further examination, the same person will admit there was a "gray period" where the church was not obeying the law. And then the argument ends when the person says "yes there may be some hypocrisy, but I don't see how talking about it is useful." And that is where all brain function ceases. |
Bookmarks |
|
|