Illogic of Prop. 8

[Indy Coug]

Gay marriage is a relationship that has zero chance of surviving into the eternities. Hate doesn't enter into the equation.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Gay marriage is a relationship that has zero chance of surviving into the eternities. Hate doesn't enter into the equation.

Are you sure? why?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Gay marriage is a relationship that has zero chance of surviving into the eternities. Hate doesn't enter into the equation.

Link?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Are you sure? why?

Because it isn't solemnized by the sealing power of the priesthood in the temple. Just like civil wedding ceremonies between a man and a woman; except that they can still at a later date enter the temple or have their work done by proxy.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Because it isn't solemnized by the sealing power of the priesthood in the temple. Just like civil wedding ceremonies between a man and a woman; except that they can still at a later date enter the temple or have their work done by proxy.

ok. So within the Mormon theological framework it does not fit. I agree with that.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

You're looking for an argument that heterosexuals will stop marrying or more heterosexual couples will get divorced b/c of gay marriage. Isn't it fun to set up a test for others when you know they'll fail?

Ironically, the Church is using this very argument here in California to persuade folks re: Prop 8.

They are referencing a study in Norway that shows a decline in the rate of heterosexual marriage....attributing the decline to the legalization of domestic partnerships. Also, a claim that abortion and promiscuity will increase (not supported by any statistical data).

I agree...it is a lousy argument.

[Levin]

The Church is in a quandry: Pragmatics are not on its side. SU is looking for a pragmatic answer, and it is very hard to argue, pragmatically speaking, that "marriage" will be a weaker institution after the adoption of gay marriage than before.

Any force for the Church's position comes from its spiritual arguments; but bringing up God in a pragmatic debate is a discussion killer.

SU is wrong to assert that the Church opposes gay marriage only b/c it views gay sex as a sin, although that is a driving force. It goes to the Church's conception of the kind of world God wants on Earth. Gay families do not have a place in that world. It is about God's will as the First Presidency understands it.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

The Church is in a quandry: Pragmatics are not on its side. SU is looking for a pragmatic answer, and it is very hard to argue, pragmatically speaking, that "marriage" will be a weaker institution after the adoption of gay marriage than before.

Any force for the Church's position comes from its spiritual arguments; but bringing up God in a pragmatic debate is a discussion killer.

SU is wrong to assert that the Church opposes gay marriage only b/c it views gay sex as a sin, although that is a driving force. It goes to the Church's conception of the kind of world God wants on Earth. Gay families do not have a place in that world. It is about God's will as the First Presidency understands it.

I agree with you 100%. I finally came to the conclusion that for this whole initiative to work, the Church simply needs to focus on one simple message....the Prophet has asked us to do something, so we should do so in faith. This is the only grounds on which the Church can firmly plant its own flag (and to creekster's earlier point, prophetic admonition is fairly solid ground upon which to plant your flag).

If the Church ventures outside this one message, it ceases to have any logical or even rational authority. To clarify, I am only speaking about the Prop 8 issue right now, so all you sex-starved anti-Mormons, calm down.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

The Church is in a quandry: Pragmatics are not on its side. SU is looking for a pragmatic answer, and it is very hard to argue, pragmatically speaking, that "marriage" will be a weaker institution after the adoption of gay marriage than before.

Any force for the Church's position comes from its spiritual arguments; but bringing up God in a pragmatic debate is a discussion killer.

SU is wrong to assert that the Church opposes gay marriage only b/c it views gay sex as a sin, although that is a driving force. It goes to the Church's conception of the kind of world God wants on Earth. Gay families do not have a place in that world. It is about God's will as the First Presidency understands it.

Your post sounds a lot like this, indeed sort of runs in parallel to it:

Apostle Mark E. Petersen:


"God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death…

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders…

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth…We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'…

"Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…

"When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…

"Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…

"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…

"Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing - what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

(Apostle Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems - As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it.

LOL.