Homosexual marriage...

[Archaea]

State the logical basis for your declaration.

In effect, you quibble with the choice Church leadership may exercise by advocating against gay marriage.

You make references to "discrimination", how the Church leaders may have felt more than a century ago when polygamy was outlawed because it was viewed, by some as "immoral." I question that premise in the first instance, or whether it was more a power play, probably a mixture of both.

You appear to believe there really is nothing wrong with gay marriage and state, wrongfully, that the Church is in the minority on this issue. Almost all states have passed measures outlawing gay marriage. That sounds like an endorsement of the Church's position, not evidence of being in the minority.

Just engage in a risk benefit analysis. What does the Church risk by endorsing legislation outlawing gay marriage? The ire of persons not associated with the Church. Were these persons ever going to donate? Not likely. What does it gain? It consolidates its declaration that families are ordained of God, it stands against what it considers sin and perhaps slows the acceptance of an abhorrent activity. It may become common practice? But what would be the benefits?

So it appears the Church's position is perfectly logical, and your opposition is irrational and unexplained.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You didn't say it, but you implied it.

Since marriage strikes at the very core of LDS beliefs, to advocate the LDS Church not speak out on it, means the Church shouldn't speak out on much of anything. It sounds as if you advocate the LDS Church should speak out on only feel-good, non-offensive issues. Wow what a wonderful organization it would become.

Should also ordain women as priests, allow gay ministers and sell indulgences?

You're so normative that the Church would be meaningless. Let's just run naked through streets, have sex with whores, take drugs, and become like unto everybody else; that way we won't offend anybody, won't infringe upon anybody's conscience and basically be neutered as an organization.

Thank goodness, our leaders, though generally pc, have a few more cajones than that. I don't want them standing for wilderness bills or making a stance on every tax bill, but one's which strike at the core of beliefs, should be something they advocate, whether they lose or win, if we don't stand for anything, then why exist. It's not a for profit organization which exist to make a product or to render a service. If we as an LDS people become too vain, worldly or inconsiderate, one would hope they speak out. I need a calling to repentance and sometimes if it affects the political arena whether I like it or not, I should be reminded of what they view as important.

You do enjoy those slippery slope arguments! I didn't say the church shouldn't or couldn't speak out about an issue. I said they shouldn't organize legislative efforts to fight this particular issue. Suddenly, you have people running naked through the streets, buying and selling indulgences, and ordaining gay ministers. How in the world do you get to that point? All of those issues revolve around internal church governance. Do you think I am advocating that the chuch allow homosexual marriages among its members? Again, some intellectual honesty please.

The issue here is not what the church should do internally, but what moral issues the church should seek to impose on others externally.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

State the logical basis for your declaration.

In effect, you quibble with the choice Church leadership may exercise by advocating against gay marriage.

You make references to "discrimination", how the Church leaders may have felt more than a century ago when polygamy was outlawed because it was viewed, by some as "immoral." I question that premise in the first instance, or whether it was more a power play, probably a mixture of both.

You appear to believe there really is nothing wrong with gay marriage and state, wrongfully, that the Church is in the minority on this issue. Almost all states have passed measures outlawing gay marriage. That sounds like an endorsement of the Church's position, not evidence of being in the minority.

Just engage in a risk benefit analysis. What does the Church risk by endorsing legislation outlawing gay marriage? The ire of persons not associated with the Church. Were these persons ever going to donate? Not likely. What does it gain? It consolidates its declaration that families are ordained of God, it stands against what it considers sin and perhaps slows the acceptance of an abhorrent activity. It may become common practice? But what would be the benefits?

So it appears the Church's position is perfectly logical, and your opposition is irrational and unexplained.

What the church "risks" is exactly what I stated in my first post. The church risks legitimizing efforts to legislate the morality of particular groups which very well could be of detriment to the church and its positions worldwide.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Alkili

What do you think of the Family Proclamation? It seems to me that it is pretty evident where the Lord stands on marriage and family issues.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I support the proclomation, and I am sure that people will be held accountable for their decisions. None of that is at issue here. Here, the question is to what extent the church should seek to COMPEL compliance with LDS beliefs.

[Archaea]

that risk exist even if the Church did nothing. That's a false risk incurred by virtue of their efforts. Nice try but the mental gymnastics isn't worth it.

All governments do is legislate behavior. Perhaps you mean more than you say, but you haven't identified a real risk.

The Church should organize legislation, as gay marriage will NOT benefit society. Legitimizing this behavior is not beneficial.

There is no net benefit to society, and based on health risks and additional insurance expenditures, further legitimization of the behavior is harmful.

The Church and its cooperatives may lose the battle, but it's one worth fighting. Your perceived risk is nothing. It does happen and will happen.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Hazzard

Every group that believes certain laws discriminate against it is free to seek redress through the legislative process and through the courts to correct such discrimination. High density LDS populations have a right to enact laws they see fit to enact and people who are not LDS are free to seek redress if they think such laws are unconstitutional. Likewise, low density LDS populations also have a right to enact their own laws and LDS people are free to seek redress if they think such laws violate their freedom of religion. I'm not sure how codified Sabbath Day restrictions violate anyone else's constitutional rights, but if they do then such people should take it to their legislatures (I know -- that's not going to help in Utah!) and to the courts. That's the process we have. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.

First, the Church isn't enforcing its moral views on others. The church is expressing its opinion on an issue, and the populace, through its elected leaders, is choosing to prohibit gay marriage -- not only in Utah, but in almost every state in the Union.

Second, every organization (the Church included) is free to complain about laws with which it disagrees. I don't see what's wrong with the Church arguing in favor of laws it feels are in its best interest and arguing against laws which it feels are contrary to its interests.

As you pointed out, all laws are based on morality to one degree or another. Therefore, the legislative process is one big moral battle, with the judiciary (and hopefully the Constitution, not foreign law ) as the arbiter. If laws are, at their essence, nothing more than expressions of morality, then isn't it the solemn duty of the Church -- and every other organization -- to advocate the morality it thinks is best? If we are all going to be governed by someone's morality, and we think we have a great moral system, isn't it our obligation to work to advance this morality?

Of course, we should always stay within the framework of the Constitution -- and I am open to arguments that a gay marriage prohibition might be unconstitutional -- but as long as the Church advances good-faith moral arguments that are not clearly unconstitutional, I don't have a problem.

Care to explain to me how a minority group within Utah county could get the legislature to pass a law allowing public pools to open on Sundays? Do you actually think there is a basis in reality for that argument? Minority groups within much of Utah have no real ability to influence leglislation that LDS members would largely disagree with. The point of the church's general counsel, which I entirely agree with, is that the same degree of coercion can, and is, used against the church outside of Utah on a constant basis. How can LDS members complain when they have stifled the minority views within LDS controlled communities?

Religious freedom is about choice. It is about providing people with the highest degree of freedom possible while still maintaining social order. Compare it, if you will, to Christ's plan and Satan's plan. Who desired to compel obedience to moral principles and who desired to allow choice?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

that risk exist even if the Church did nothing. That's a false risk incurred by virtue of their efforts. Nice try but the mental gymnastics isn't worth it.

All governments do is legislate behavior. Perhaps you mean more than you say, but you haven't identified a real risk.

The Church should organize legislation, as gay marriage will NOT benefit society. Legitimizing this behavior is not beneficial.

There is no net benefit to society, and based on health risks and additional insurance expenditures, further legitimization of the behavior is harmful.

The Church and its cooperatives may lose the battle, but it's one worth fighting. Your perceived risk is nothing. It does happen and will happen.

Wow- your statement about additional health risks and insurance benefits reveals a great degree of ignorance on this subject. Married homosexuals are much LESS likely to carry diseases and their commitment to one partner actually BENEFITS society by minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. You may be arguing that there is no net benefit to society for homosexuality, but your argument about homosexual marriage having no benefit is simply false (empirically so).

Of course governments benefit behavior. Nobody has said any differently. The question is WHAT behavior is appropriate for legislation? Surely you aren't arguing that ALL behavior is appropriate for legislation, though your argument implies exactly that.

In my view, the church needs to be cautious about legislating its beliefs if it is to have any moral position to demand fair treatment from majority groups when the church is in the minority.

[Archaea]

No I compare it with the Nephites and the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, who refused to entertain priestcraft, throwing the false teachers out of their lands.

By your argument, the majority should never stifle any activities of the minorities. Yes LDS are oppressed from time to time. We should either make affiliations for political protection, or leave if we are stifled.

This argument is humorous; because minority opinion groups are stifled, the majority should not prevail. Isnt' that what representative government is generally about, if an issue arises of general concern, the majority vote should be given weight, as long as legitimate minority rights are protected?

Since when is gay marriage a legitimate right? Through the normative process, it may become so, but historically it has not been so, and it will never benefit society. The degree of harm is open for debate. I submit the harm heaped upon society, for political reasons, will never be measured.

You just rationalized away representative government, in favor of a tyranny of the minority.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I support the proclomation, and I am sure that people will be held accountable for their decisions. None of that is at issue here. Here, the question is to what extent the church should seek to COMPEL compliance with LDS beliefs.

This last statement is intellectually dishonest. Compelling compliance? Are you for real? Anti gay marriage legislation does NOT compel, non-gay relations, only stops legal recognition of the relations and stops, the real issue, the devolvement of BENEFITS.

You are being intellectually dishonest here.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No I compare it with the Nephites and the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, who refused to entertain priestcraft, throwing the false teachers out of their lands.

By your argument, the majority should never stifle any activities of the minorities. Yes LDS are oppressed from time to time. We should either make affiliations for political protection, or leave if we are stifled.

This argument is humorous; because minority opinion groups are stifled, the majority should not prevail. Isnt' that what representative government is generally about, if an issue arises of general concern, the majority vote should be given weight, as long as legitimate minority rights are protected?

Since when is gay marriage a legitimate right? Through the normative process, it may become so, but historically it has not been so, and it will never benefit society. The degree of harm is open for debate. I submit the harm heaped upon society, for political reasons, will never be measured.

You just rationalized away representative government, in favor of a tyranny of the minority.

You are extrapolating way too much here. I did not say we should throw out our entire representative government. Get off of your sled heading down your slippery slope! I said an LDS majority should be exceptionally cautious in enforcing its moral opinions on others- two very different concepts.