Hi - I'll withold the introduction - If you want to see it, I have previously filled it all out in my profile, and you can and SHOULD go there - man, it's exciting stuff. First off, let me appolagize for my atrocious spelling. It's always been my weak point and won't change, so I'm sorry - I really am smart and well read, I just can't spell to save my life - so don't judge me! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I am probably the Far-Lefty of the group, so...that's about all that can be said about that -
So, with no further ado, I have a BURNING question that I just can't figure out: WHY in the world would Mormons be opposed to gay marriage?
Let me restate the question. Of all churches out there, ours is a church intimately acquainted with the negative and destructive effects that governmental legislation of marriage can have - I mean, Polygamy went from being the New and Everlasting Covenant that man must abide by to inherit the Celestial Kingdom to being a hiss and a byword among the Saints. I think we forget our heritage when we speak out in favor of the government legislating marriage in ANY of it's forms. I mean, who are we to make the claim to the country that "our socially deviant form of marriage is inspired by God, therefore should never have been outlawed in the first place, but THAT other socially deviant form of marriage is evil and will destroy the nation." Now, I'm not necessarily defending Gay Marriage - You can be for it or against it- I don't care - I just don't see how we can justify legislating it with our history, background and doctrine (sorry, folks, though it's not practiced, the doctrine was never repealed). However, This practice seems to be the norm in the church. In fact, I'd say that many people might feel like an active Mormon could "never vote for someone who supports that." We make this a moral issue, and one that is of prime importance to us. I just don't get it - when there are other moral issues (See my post on Health Insurance on my personal blog) that we don't even identify as a moral issue. So, there's some food for thought. Peace - Rick
What's Up Marriage Legislation?
Posted by Anonymous on 1/18/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Wow dude - way to jump right into it. This is a pretty good summary of my take on things.
Also, isn't there a built-in spell checker on here that underlines things in red? :) :)
Okay, that's the greatest solution I've ever heard - do you think it's a remote possibility, or do you think that people'd toss that out as "weaking the sacred institution of marriage." I think you should outline that in your own words so that our vast conglomerate of readers can hear your take without clickingo n the funny blue word. Thanks for pointing me there, man - Rick
Rick - All I have to say is in the Family Proclamation says "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God... The family is ordained of God. Marriage between MAN and WOMAN is essential to His eternal plan.... We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to PROMOTE those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." When there is a candidate who stands for that, who believes in that just as I do, THAT is who I'm going to support.
Rick- So I checked out your personal blog... I absolutely love your post titled "Beauty is what the Eye Beholds." It's amazing to me. That's all.
fair enough, SSA (that's what I'm going to call you, since I don't know whether or not you are stacy, steve or aleena (by the way, my wife's name is aileena - I'm sure it's pronounced the same way - and she' rules) anyways, SSA, I'd urge you to check out the link that Mike posted- it's pretty rad. The question that one must ask AFTER reading that link is this: "is legislation the answer?" Because, lets be honest, civil marriage is not what the Proclaimation is refering to at all - the Proclaimaton is refering to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage that is "essential to His eternal plan." I mean civil marriage doesn't enter into it - thus the legilation of civil marriage doesn't enter into it. The new and everlasting covenant, as revealed in D&C 132 is in the temple w/priesthood authority and INCLUDES plural marriage. So...if we are calling on governments to promote THAT kind of marriage, then they can't legislate it - because it's none of their business what goes on in the Temple - And the last time they tried to legilate that kind of marriage, there was a Utah War, Mountian Meadow Massacre, and eventually God's sacred ordinance was put on hiatus. Frankly, it's none of the government's business what goes on in our Holy Temples just like it isn't any of their business what goes on anyother kind of marriage. The civil marriage is NOT THE SAME as the new and everlasting covenant that the first presidence is talking about - We forget that, I think. Thanks, by the way for your comments on my personal blog - that means alot. - kay, peace - Rick
Hmmm... So you have found one of the few issues I differ with most conservatives on (kinda). I believe that we as a society (NOT a religion) cannot, by the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America, deny the right for gay people to marry. Unless there were a Constitutional Amendment passed, I don't see how gay marriage can be made illegal.
Now, I am morally opposed to such arrangements and such actions, but that really isn't the business of lawmakers to decide based on how the Constitution is written. I disagree with you regarding the Church's opposition to gay marriage, though, and thus I think you are making the wrong argument. Even according to Mike's link, it is perfectly within the Church's realm of authority to decided what is and isn't "okay" as far as marriage goes. Because religion, not necessarily logic, is THE driving factor behind many, many American's political views, legistlating a religious position is the more the norm than the exception.
I don't think that I'm going to be able to accurately convey all of my thoughts on this in a comment. I also don't think that I'm addressing your post quite the way I want. So I'll stop, allow some more conversation, regroup, and try more later.
Actually, Joel, I didn't say that it wasn't okay for the Church to be against Gay marriage - that is totally within their right, and I agree that if that's what the church decides, then more power to them - my argument has strictly been about the government's right to legislate it - that's all. So, I am in agreement with you there - if I made it seem like I was against the church taking a stance, I didn't mean to.
You don't say that the Church can't take a stand - and I knew you didn't when I was responding. You do make it sound like that as members of the church we should ignore the church's official stance and instead remember that what we deem okay (plural marriage) is not deemed okay by others, so what we deem not okay (gay marriage) we should deal with. I would hope that your argument would continue on to plural marriage, too. Why is it the government's place to decide that if 3 or 5 or 15 consenting adults want to have one marriage, they can't? You make it sound like you want the government to get out of the way, but then how do you deal with such circumstances in the civil world? ...Does this make any sense? If the government can't regulate "marriage" then how do they regulate "unions" without problems arising?
Keeping in mind that I agree the gay marriage is constitutional. I just think that the proposal Mike references gets iffy when extended...
I don't think that they should regulate it at all - Hey, if 15 people want to get married to each other, it's their call - if that is what their conscience tells them, then it's not up to the government to regulate that - and my big overarching arguement is that, if that were to happen, then the DOCTRINE of polygamy would be able to be practiced as the Lord intended it, without the Government getting involved - does that make sense? So, the point is, that if the government seperatied itself from marriage completely, then that could be left to the religion and then "true marriage" as the Church defines it could be practiced -so it's a win win situation. That's all.
Rick- The Family Proclamation is titled "A Prolamation TO THE WORLD." It is infact talking to the world about marriage that is only between MAN and WIFE. It is NOT just talking to members alone. That is why the first presidency wrote it. Wether you live in Africa, Iraq, San Francisco, or wherever it is to everyone. That is why I feel it is so important that I stand behind a leader who knows this just as I know it. In the Proclamation it also says "We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and Nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." So if whoever is elected, doesn't make gay marriage illegal, then I say bring hell on! Oh and this is Stacy talking. But you can call me SSA if you want.
Rick - But what does the government do CIVILY about 15 people being married? Go with it? What about health issues (one says pull the plug while another says don't)? It is this kind of thing that makes me think this a slippery slope you're walking down.
Now. Just to throw this out there (because I VERY purposefully avoided it previously), I most certainly would support a protection of marriage amendment to the Constitution. And I would support a candidate that wanted such an amendment, though it is not a qualifier with me.
Like I've repeatedly said, the Constitution as written doesn't prohibit gay marriage. So let's change it! :)
Rick- I just wanted to say in answer to your question "Why should the government regulate marriage?" Because this country was founded on moral principles - "In God We Trust". If we do not uphold these moral principles this country will fall apart (as stated in the scriptures). So it is our responsibility to ensure that the governmnet DOES regulate marriage and other moral issues. And thank you Joel for your last comment!
Stacey - First off, Gay marriage is already illegal in most states -and so far, it is a state issue. Second, you keep quoting the proclaimation, but you are taking the statements out of context. Allowing Gay marriage as a legal option is not calling for the disentigration of the family. You have to read it in order and not take the lines out of context. Anyways, You know my point. The big point I wanted to make (and, interestingly, the one that no one has hardly mentioned) is that the reason that the Lord put the Church's law of Marriage (plural marriage) on hold is because the nation was regulating marriage where it had no right. What I'm saying is that the cessation of the regulation of marriage would make possible for the Lord's Law of Marriage to be practiced again. That has far mor important and reaching effects, in my opinion than allowing Homosexuals to have legally recognized marriages (cause, lets face it -they are going to live together and have relations whether they are married or not- and how would we stop them? Prison? Hardly seems an answer, wouldn't you say.} Anyways, that's probably the last I should say on the subject.
Hey guys, after reading all arguments I have formed my opinion and can understand were you all are coming from. My opinion is thus...
I think Rick's opinion comes across more cynical and finite than he intends, I have been able to understand his marriage views in the past, which, if I am not mistaken, is his underlying point to be made, however I would have to disagree with an attitude of, "they are gonna do it anyway."
Also, a good point that marriage regulation may not be constitutional. Very understandable and a good point in my book, however I would be cautious in citing Separation of Church and State as I don't feel it is being cited in context. I don't feel that it was ever intented of the founders to have complete separation more the governing. Marriage has been for a very long time a responsibility of the state. "Church and State," Also has been misused in the past, i.e. prayer in school or Ten Commandments in courts.
So, my position becomes complicated. We cannot condone the acts of other individuals to commit sin. However the less government that is involved in our private lives is always a better way. If we allow the breakdown of the family unit by belittling the sanctity of marriage in this, it would be detrimental to the success of the country. The answer lies in stronger families, and a righteous family cannot be built on the foundation of sin. While disallowing the religious control of government and similarly not allowing governmental control of religion, for the future of our nation, Marriage must be protected.
(P.S. I don't feel the family proclamation was taken out of context.)
I'm sorry I don't feel that the Proclamation was taken out of context either. If allowing gay marriage doesn't disintegrate the family then what does? Cause to me that is EXACTLY what disintegrating the family is. Anyways, I don't think any of us really know why the Lord put the Church's law of Marriage (plural marriage) on hold. I know we can't stop gays from living together but I feel we should not allow them to be married. Sorry I just have to say what I believe. I'm done now....
So, should divorce be illegal as well? Is that not a breakdown of the family? What about individuals who choose not to be married, or who choose not to have children? Should people get a certain number of "tries" at marriage and then they lose their chance? Surely someone could make a mistake but after, say, 3 strikes then you're out?
(Not equating any of these circumstances to the other, just trying to get some more discussion going...)
Let me recompose my thoughts. I guess the legislation of gay marriage isn't the point. The point is to not belittle the union of Man and Woman as marriage. Government isn't there to keep people from sinning or to legislate right and wrong, people have to govern themselves, however it is their responsibility to protect the rights of something as vital as the family. When it comes to the family some situations between a man and a woman would be better off if they were allowed to start over and divorce should be for those special circumstances. Maybe bickering is tearing the family apart anyhow. The abuse of the divorce law, which can be found as illegal in history, is upon the head of the individuals not the governments.
But then I guess it's dependent upon each person whether they feel that gay marriage is threatening the family as we know it.
I don't have any kind of "doctrinal" basis for it, I guess, I just do not feel that allowing two people to marry is inherently mocking marriage. Marriage is taken lightly by many people all over the world, and in many ways that are "incorrect" according to church standards. Multiple marriages, shotgun weddings, Britney Spears, Eddie Murphy, marriages between two people of different faiths...
I feel that it's in the intent, and there is no way for the government to know a person's intent. If two (or more, but that's another story) consenting adults want to join their households then they should be able to do it. If any church doesn't want to perform the service, or recognize the union, that's their prerogative. We could avoid the whole issue altogether and allow the government to unite whomever wishes to be united in a civil union (yes, that's "conventional" unions too)and if a couple desires a religious ceremony then they can seek that separately.
isn't that pretty much what we already do?
Rach, your last paragraph is the answer- that is basically what Mike proposed at the top of the page- and, As far as I can see, the only viable solution.
I still don't think that that is a viable solution! You can't let anybody and everybody that wants to be "married" be joined in a union. Forgetting about religion ENTIRELY for a moment:
A wise man once asked (and was ignored): "But what does the government do CIVILY about 15 people being married? Go with it? What about health issues (one says pull the plug while another says don't)?"
This obviously doesn't relate directly to gay marriage. As the law currently stands, I think it should be allowed. I also think we should make the law so it isn't allowed. It is impossible to separate entirely religious unions and civilly recognized unions. It is just the way society is. You have to solve issues like this in the real world where real people are dealing with them, and I think that several of you may be circumventing certain aspects of reality here.
Being obviously frustrated at this point, I'm officially signing off the topic permanently. I hope somebody addresses my above question this time.
Ah, Joel, don't worry, everyone agrees with you except me and rachel (and probably Mike, but he's the strong silent type.) About 15 people getting a 'union' - You have mentioned 15 people getting married a few times. That practice is called Polyandry - it's already a fairly large, and quite harmless subculture. I happen to know some polyandrists quite well, and they are really normal and happy - The trend seems to be, the more people that are in the "union," the more difficult it becomes, so I don't forsee it being a problem. so, I see no problem with the government not regulating that (how is that different than one guy and 14 wives?) And about pulling the plug? Well, they could vote. I still don't see why the government has to regulate that. And I definately don't see how that is circumnavigating reality. Anyways, I'm quite glad you brought this up, because this topic wasn't about GAY marriage, per se, it was about marriage regulations. Sorry you are frusterated, but I just don't see how that is skirting reality - just cause I know people from all across THAT spectrum and it hasn't been entirely problematic for them - the biggest problem has been that they can't get married - so, the answer for them is to say, "legal marriage doesn't mean anything anyways" so they do what they feel is right to be "married" in their own eyes. They just can't claim it on taxes.
First, let me respond to Joel - though I know he's bowed out of this thread. Thank you for actually looking at the law and realizing that as things stand, it's unlawful to discriminate against gay marriage. The only two viable solutions are a constitutional amendment or the Dershowitz plan I linked in the first comment.
If I am reading you right, you think the Dershowitz plan is not viable because there's no justification for limiting the unions to two people. I guess I would say that the two issues are unrelated. Whether or not the government has a legitimate interest in sanctioning unions between two people is unrelated to the question of whether or not the governments' sanctioning of said unions can be discriminatory based on gender. In other words, I don't see the progression to: "unions are ok between any two people, regardless of their gender" to "unions are ok between any number of people". The first premise assumes the existence of and corrects a discriminatory practice. The second premise corrects NO discrimination. Does that make sense?
Second, I think this is illustrative of a tendency of the Republicans to confuse the correction of an injustice with an attack on values. An extreme hypothetical example would be like the following: assume there was some law on the books taxing men at 10% and women at 5%. If I said, "Well, we should raise the tax on women to 5%," the Republicans might say, "You hate women! You are anti-woman! Women have always been taxed at 5%!" Really, you're just trying to obtain equity.
Regardless of how entrenched or old a practice is, justice is justice. So when I say - to use a real-life example - I think we should remove the term "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, it's not because I'm anti-God, anti-religion, un-American, or anything like that. It's because I believe an injustice was perpetrated in 1954 when those words were added to the Pledge, and I want to fix it. Similarly, someone who tries to bring justice to the government-sponsored union situation is perceived as anti-marriage, anti-family, when really this is not so.
Don't get me wrong, the Democrats do this too; a lot. I think the Republicans do so more often, though.
Correction to that last comment: third paragraph should read, "'Well, we should raise the tax on women to 10%'". Too many words for me to process right now, I guess, plus I'm all burnt out and pessimistic from watching the Dem debate tonight and only caring, somewhat, for Edwards.
But I don't understand why it's unrealistic? I never claimed to be anything but an idealist, but I don't see why the government can't have control over civil unions, for purposes of taxes and next of kin, rights at death, etc, and the various religions have control over their religious rites. How is that unrealistic?
I guess the issue of one person wanting to "pull the plug" in your hypothetical situaiton is much cause for concern to me. If someone doesn't have a will then there's always a mess anyway. Jeb Bush gets to decide!
Blasted typing at midnight. That should say "is NOT a cause of concern to me".
Whoo boy. I get all shivery when core values are being attacked/confused/misconstrued... and right now, I'm shivering!!
Yikes, guys. The Lord has made it very simple for us. There is no confusion. Marriage is ordained of God, this country has His protection when we follow His commandments, and YES, the government should have a STANDARD.
Marriage has been defined already. Man & woman. If people out there want to try some other form of it; it is no longer "marriage." Go find another word because that one is taken. You can no sooner re-define marriage as you can re-define the word "dog."
Marriage & family are the safest and strongest way to survive (yes there are deviations, but that is the main idea). Our government SHOULD hold the strongest method as what it condones.
We should try and make these facts more clear and not try and muddy the water with more 'what-ifs' & confusion. I understand you're trying to have discussion. But let's not lose focus here. (especially if you're going to have LDS in the title here:P)
Simplicity is really the Lord's way. If you want to root for the underdog, maybe try a sports team... not the unit that is "Central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."
Hi Tanya - or Coy? - or a kid? - welcome to the blog! :)
I think you're right in reminding us that there are core points on which we agree. There's no question about that. Personally, I especially agree with you when you say, "Marriage has been defined already. Man & woman... Go find another word because that one is taken."
I want them - in this case, they are the government - to find another word! This is why when I think of this, I think of "giving marriage back to the churches". Let US define marriage as we wish, according to the dictates of our own consciences. For me, my marriage is something I take very seriously and hold very sacred, and I have no desire to have the government of the United States interfering with that in any way - which they can and will do. Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage. I don't like that; yet it's the law of the land. Given the option between a government which distorts the institution of marriage and a government which recuses itself from defining it, leaving that burden to its people, I choose the latter.
Here are some other things which I know to be true, yet would not require by law:
"We... declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."
I absolutely believe that this civil union idea may be the best "measure designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." I know it's unorthodox, but I think a little unorthodoxy is a good thing. It has nothing to do with rooting for the underdog; it has to do with protecting my own family!
Also, I want to point out that there is a very clear disclaimer at the bottom of the page - now moved to the right of the page, where it is more visible - which states that NONE of us are speaking on behalf of the Church. We are individual Church members; this is just a forum for discussion.
I'm taking Joel's route, and going to bow out of this one - but before I do....Tanya, I also like what you said about "a new word" and I feel that Mike hit the nail on the head - that's the point. This legal union that we call marriage isn't really Marriage. It's simply something to claim on taxes and visas. So lets not call it that- lets call it civil union. Leave marriage to the religions and the spirituality of it's practicioners to decide. I've been picking my words very carefully so as not to "root" for Gay marriage. The point is that some things are constitutional and "right" to legislate, and some are unconstitutional. Marriage is a religious/spiritual institution and as such there is no reason for state legislation. You don't see the state trying to legilsate our tithing, sacrament meeting attendance or temple worship. Why the covenant of Marriage? "We grant all men the same priviledge - let them worship how, where or what they may." The core unit of society is "the family" not "marriage." Marriage is a covenant which we have defined one way that is unique to us. It is up to everyone to decide what that means for them - because they will anyways. If the government started legislating in favor of my religion to the detriment of someone else's religion, I'd be furious - whether I agree with it or not- cause it's not my call, it's theirs (according to the 11th Article of Faith). As Marriage is a spiritual covenant, That's the approach that I have to stick to.
way to go on opening a can. How did this erupt into a morality issue about gay marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong-but I think we all agree that gay marriage is probably immoral because we all have a sense of the importance of marriage. The question is when we are voting do we want the government to have control over marriages? I for one do not because I do not want them to tell me that I can't be married in the temple. In addition, let us also remember that voting for a candidate involves a lot more than just one single morality issue. I for one, believe that all candidates and their congresses have their fair share of corruption, so when I vote I think about all the issues that I am concerned about. Let us not forget the second great commandment thou shalt love thy neighbor-you want to talk about corruption, how well is america doing that? This is rhetorical-its time to close this bag and move on to other issues. But hey guys here is hug to all of you, because I love you. Aileena
At the risk of sounding like a jerk I suppose I'll bow out too. I've said my piece, which is the point of this blog, right? To discuss and learn from each other, maybe see things in a way we hadn't before. If you've got no interest in seeing things any differently than you currently do (which is certainly your call!) then I might respectfully suggest avoiding sites aimed at this very purpose...
YOU'RE ALL CUT AND RUN! STAY THE COURSE, MAN!
hehehe
YES!!! No cut and run. We were making headway. The biggest in my mind is that we were able to clarify peoples intentions. I for one benefitted greatly and learned that we all seem to be in favor of the same thing, and that being the civil union, or having the right to sit next to a dying "loved one," (cause they do,) in a hospital when only family is allowed. Plus I learned all kinds of big words from Mike and an insight to his knowledge.
I am not an official blogger for the site but maybe I can summarize and close if anyone is even gonna check this thread again after I post. I am going to make some generalizations, I hope I am not too far off. We all agree that marriage is sacred. We all agree that homosexuality isn't condoned by God. We all agree that homosexuals are children of God. We all agree that government can screw things up and has in some areas. We all agree that less legislation is better than more. We all agree that to some degree government feels the need to know our marital status. Lastly, I would like to generalize that we all possibly want a way to close the issue without losing "Marriage" as defined between a man and woman while letting people of the same sex choose their own way in this life, as the Savior's plan was not coersion.
Thanks all for the posts, I know on this subject I now have a little more understanding of where "the other side," is coming from and additionally realized a few flaws in my own stance and didn't realize where I thought I was coming from.
dude, I love that guy.
I'm glad to see most of you are taking the libertarian view on this. Government has no place regulating marriage (and most other issues) whatsoever, marriage is primarily a religious construct. Of course there are significant governmental/legal issues involved such as rights of inheritance and death benefits, but those should ideally be recipient agnostic, any person or group properly specified should be acceptable. I've had quite a few heated discussions about this over the last year or so with people who can't seem to separate religious issues from political issues. Just because I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean I have or should have the right to enforce my beliefs on others. If I'm not mistaken that is very similar to the path that Lucifer advocated and that all of us voted against with our feet. Now I just have to convince Rick of this same principle with respects to socialized health care...
(By the way it's good to see several of you again, it's been along time.)
Excuse me, Rick, but polyandry is the practice of having more than one husband at a time.
I just don't understand how your gay sister, gay brother, gay cousin, gay aunt, gay uncle, gay friend, or gay neighbor getting married threatens your marriage to your husband or your wife.
Gay people being happily married just isn't going to threaten, dissolve, or disintegrate marriage.
Alicia - I never mentioned polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)- but I'm against the legislation of that too. I did mention polyamory (with an "m")which refers to the practice of groups of consenting adults entering into a relationship.
I haven't had time to read everything posted about this but here's my take on it. Rick, It's the "Proclamation to the WORLD", not "Proclamation to active, sealed, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". The purpose is to tell the world our standards and values, and to remind members of the church of the beliefs that are crucial for our salvation. Look it up online. One of the first commandments was to multiply and replenish the earth. Last time I checked two women or two men are not able to procreate (test tubes don't count). Our purpose of coming to earth is to gain a body which is not possible through gay marriage.
As for the family, todays definition is any people living together. The pure definition of the family God intended is a Mother, Father and their children.
Thus a mother & mother or father & father do contribute to the disintegration of the family. God specifically made a man and woman to join together as they each have unique contributions to marriage.
As far as the government is concerned, I can see how gay marriage should not be legislated against if there were no god or religious influence in the founding of this nation. "In God We Trust"! (but not for long because people are "offended" by God). Everyone loves to be "offended" and everything has to be P.C. now days. Which, by the way, is another great downfall this nation is heading toward. Everyone has to feel good, everyone gets 1st place, nobody can be a loser, the government needs to help everybody. Give me a break! I'm sorry for the tangent, wait, no I'm not. OK, back to the government, This nation was founded on religious principals and by God fearing men. Gay marriage is not only against the plan of God, but it WILL lead to the disintegration of the family. The disintegration of the family WILL lead to broken communities, and in turn, will lead to the disintegration of the America that was founded on the principals of a God fearing people.
Ah, see, I have often thought of that too. I'm a big fan of the "laws of nature". But if we say that gays shouldn't be married because they can't procreate, then what about heterosexuals (yes, even Mormon ones!) who know they can't have children? What about people too old to bear children? What about non-Mormons who don't plan to have children? Yes, adoption is an option (I think a wonderful, wonderful option) but if the idea is "multiply" and we are to take that literally, apply it unilaterally and legislate it upon everyone regardless of whether they hold that belief...
I realize this isn't your only rationale, but I this is always what my brain says when I think this to myself, or when I hear it from others.
And again, it really comes down to whether you or I feel that our beliefs, which indeed have been proclaimed "to the world", should be legislated upon the world. That's part of the fun - our beliefs overlap so much, and yet we differ on how we personally believe they should apply to others who do not hold them.
Oh, and also - while I believe the majority, if not all, of the "founding fathers" were indeed people who believed in a higher power, they did not all agree with each other either. They didn't all go to the same church. And it wasn't "our church", and I don't care what anyone says, I don't think they would have all been Mormon if the option had been available.
They had to do exactly what we do now - take their basic, human ethics and moral standards and figure out which ones needed to be legislated and which ones were best left to the individual. I don't think the issue of gay marriage came up at that time, and it seems like our best shot is to refer to the Constitution and try to decide whether marriage is something that falls to the federal government or the states. Or to the churches and not the government at all.
Thanks for responding. I enjoy hearing different points of view, and learning from what I read. This is a tough one. It is hard because this is driven by religious emotions. I realize that there are those that have no religious beliefs, and some that do that don't feel homosexuality is wrong. And to those, it makes sense to me that gay marriage should not be legislated against.
I agree that the founding fathers didn't share the same religious denomination, nor would they have been Mormon if they had the chance. But they believed in a common creator and I assume were guided by values.
I feel I must stick to my values and not change with the world. As I said before, this nation was founded on righteous principals. Just because times have changed doesn't mean morals have to as well. That's of course how I feel as a religious person, and thus arises the conflict of how far should the government legislate. In the end,I think we can agree that it should be up to ones religious affiliation to legislate marriage.
Post a Comment