LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

If you feel it inappropriate for mormons to marry, go for it, lobby it all youw ant try to get a law passed. I dare you, I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU. seriously, go do it. you are entitled to your opinions just as much as any of us are.

Wow. Can we move this argument from fifth grade to at least, maybe, a college level?

The point is that we would never want that law passed, because we don't feel we have the right to tell you what to do or not do, as long as you're not hurting anyone. If you want to marry another consenting adult, whether or not they are Mormon, I don't care. That's the difference.

 

[Magic Man]

i really just don't care. I will be voting for the constitutional ammendment to ban same sex marriage in this country because of my own moral values.

your flaming me only strengthens my resolve and knowlege of how immoral the world really is right now.

Yes, we know you don't care. You don't care about others. Is that really the way God wants you to be?

No, you alone are strengthening your resolve. It's like saying "He hit me first", when you were insulting the other guy in every way imaginable to goad him. Then, his hitting you, even though it's partly your fault, makes you feel justified in retaliating. What's immoral is trying to control others' lives. We are not gulty of that.

 

[madhatter85]

I assume you are talking about black priesthood as your one. I added polygamy as the second, even though I guess it doesn't count for much of a doctrinal change it is certainly the one that pops into most peoples' heads first.

Neither have changed. the Doctrine of Blacks and the priesthood has always been the same.

It was prophesied that there would come a time that they would be able to hold it. and it came to pass, the doctrine never changed, merely prophecy fulfilled.

Polygamy, the doctrine is still a real doctrine, we have never abandoned the doctrine, but we did abandon the practice because the Lord told his prophets to stop.

 

[Magic Man]

Polygamy, the doctrine is still a real doctrine, we have never abandoned the doctrine, but we did abandon the practice because the Lord told his prophets to stop.

Are you saying that the doctrine says that polygamy is acceptable, and that is still around, but God told you to stop actually practicing polygamy, so you didn't throw the doctrine away, you just stopped doing what it supports?

That's the way that sounds to me. I hope my interpretation is incorrect.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes, we know you don't care. You don't care about others. Is that really the way God wants you to be?

No, you alone are strengthening your resolve. It's like saying "He hit me first", when you were insulting the other guy in every way imaginable to goad him. Then, his hitting you, even though it's partly your fault, makes you feel justified in retaliating. What's immoral is trying to control others' lives. We are not gulty of that.

I'm not retaliating at all.

i just see where everyone's morals are and what i have read in the Book of Mormon has alot of people on here pegged perfectly.

 

[madhatter85]

Are you saying that the doctrine says that polygamy is acceptable, and that is still around, but God told you to stop actually practicing polygamy, so you didn't throw the doctrine away, you just stopped doing what it supports?

That's the way that sounds to me. I hope my interpretation is incorrect.

The practice has been suspended but the doctrine is not done away with.

 

[Father Heathen]

what i have read in the Book of Mormon has alot of people on here pegged perfectly.

What I've read in "The Butter Battle Book" has you pegged perfectly.

 

[madhatter85]

What I've read in "The Butter Battle Book" has you pegged perfectly.

i'm glad we can relate then :clap

 

[Magic Man]

The practice has been suspended but the doctrine is not done away with.

so, you have a doctrine that says polygamy is acceptable, but you stopped practicing polygamy because God said so? Is that correct?

 

[Father Heathen]

i'm glad we can relate then :clap

Except I'm not trying to have eating bread with the butter side down illegalized.

 

[Apex]

so, you have a doctrine that says polygamy is acceptable, but you stopped practicing polygamy because God said so? Is that correct?

Here is a good explanation.

Link

Polygamy is forbidden in the Book of Mormon, except for those times when the Lord commands it (see Jacob 2:30). For reasons I don't understand, the Lord commanded that practice for a period of time from the 1840s until 1890. Yes, it was a Biblical practice for a time, as evidenced by Abraham (see Gen. 25:1-6) and Jacob (see Gen. 29 and 30). The prophet and king David had multiple wives (2 Samuel 12:7-9), as did Solomon (including wives who worshipped strange gods, which was forbidden), Gideon (Judges 8:30), and Jehoiada the priest (2 Chronicles 24:2-3). Deuteronomy 21:15-17 shows polygamy accepted as a valid practice and gives rules governing the inheritance for children of polygamous wives.

You also must take into account the Twelfth Article of Faith.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 

[Orontes]

Reply Part I

I have not admitted the state has an interest in the production of people. That is your assertion. It is not true. If we were a struggling country, maybe, but we're not. Many resources are running low for the people that we do have.

I thought I read you did accept the state has an interest in the production of people. If you say you don't agree that is fine. Most political thinkers hold that the state has self interests. One of those is self preservation. New citizens are a key component to state self preservation as people compose the state and yet are perishable ( get old and die). It is a standard position from a political philosophical perspective.

Then, you need to show why the state endorses marriages that involve couples who are sterile or have other physical problems that don't allow pregnancy or simply don't want to have children. For that to be a deciding difference in the equation, you have to either show that all couples who cannot produce children are not endorsed by the state, or show what makes some couples who cannot reproduce different from other couples who cannot reproduce. You have done neither so far.

As to state endorsement of marriage: as I have explained, what constitutes infertility is changing year by year as medical technology is reducing this issue. Married couples who permanently decide not to have children are very few. Both of these offered counter examples are marginal. Legislation and law rarely operate from the margins (though they could). The reality is the vast bulk of marriages do produce children. Marriage is also a stable environment for the foster of children. It is because of this large penchant to both produce and offer stability that the state interest exists.

Good. Then we agree that since state-endorsed marriage exists, everyone has the same claim to it. BTW, I think you're going a little too far with your definition of "right".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from my statement. Further, I don't agree everyone has the same claim to "it" (at least not on the same terms). Neither does the state. Incestuous marriage claims are not recognized. Inter-species marriage claims are not recognized. Pedophilic marriage claims are not recognized without Court sanction.

Not legally it couldn't. I would love to see some state try to ban a heterosexual couple from getting married because they're sterile. It amazes me that you think it's perfectly legal to do such a thing. Just as the infertility label is not a set wall, the same sex wall is not either. Just as a woman can get help to overcome sterility, a lesbian can get help to conceive a child without a father. I understand that you're going to claim that that is two different things, but for the purposes of this topic they are not.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I did not say it was legal to ban heterosexual sterile couples from marrying. I did say that the state could narrow its endorsement/benefits of marriage to exclude such should the political will exist. You may want to note, within the legal history of the U.S., the state has taken some rather remarkable actions in these various areas. In 1907 the State of Indiana introduced forced sterilizations. Over the next few decades 30 other states adopted similar force sterilization policies. This was all due to Progressive political desires to regulate production (as in who could and should reproduce) to benefit the state.

As to a same sax couples wall and reproducing vis-a-vis heterosexual infertile couples: gay couple can opt for donors etc. to have children, but such action is dependent on a third person, who is not part of any gay marriage. Thus, it is an appeal to something not intrinsic to the marriage itself. Any equity argument is based on a direct and strict comparison. Heterosexual couples have the potential to conceive without a third party acting in a surrogate role. Insemination protocols do not require use of any third person's body etc. This is distinct from any gay couples' option. Thus the two are not the same. One can potentially reproduce on its own terms, the other cannot.

" The majoritarian model is the model that informs political discourse in the U.S. This is how political leaders are chosen. This is how laws are passed, it is how the Constitution was ratified and how it is changed. It is the basis through which legitimacy is determined. To whit, what is legitimate is what indicates the will of the people. Conversely, any asserted law. right etc. that lacks the will of the people is thereby illegitimate and must be opposed. If you feel there is some merit in state sanction of gay marriage, you should take it to the public square and get others to agree you and have a law passed. To have four people dictate what is a law or a right to 38 million is untoward and illegitimate. It is an example of tyranny of the minority."

It is sad that, even with no formal study of the law, I still have a better basic understanding of it than you do. Our government is not "Majority rules". I hesitate to go any further with that, though, seeing as you haven't picked that up in your several to many years of studying the law. I'm not sure I can accomplish in this setting what many years of formal study failed to do. Majority rules in this country as long as it abides by the Constitution. In this case, the majority didn't abide by that, so these "four people" stepped in and made things right.

Your comment suggests you didn't understand my post. There is a base majoritarianism that underscores U.S. Law. It is the case at all levels. The Constitution itself is a majoritarian product. The Constitution wasn't imposed from above, but was ratified. The Constitution remains subject to the people. They can and do amend it when it is deemed necessary. This is rather basic civics. The principle behind this is that people should be the ultimate authority of the laws that control their lives. I get the sense you reject this principle. Even so, when this notion is applied to rights claims: rights do not appear by fiat. They must also pass democratic muster to have force and legitimacy. For example women's suffrage. Women could not vote. Now, one might think is silly or wrong, but no such right to vote existed under the original constitutional framework. If a judge or four judges in 1900 suddenly declared that in fact women have this right, it would be a misappropriation of the law and need to be opposed. Proponents of women's suffrage needed to gain popular support and then change the law so the right existed. This is how legitimacy is garnered. For gay marriage right advocates the same road is before them.

Now as a brief aside, there is a question: if there is in fact a gay marriage right, where did it come from? Did it exist in 1789? Did it exist in 1850? If so, why wasn't it recognized? There is nothing in the text, or the Federalist Papers that speak of this gay marriage right. If it did exist from the 18th or 19th Centuries, but wasn't recognized then one has the problem of why this existence claim isn't simply bald assertion. Further, there is the problem of why an unrecognized right should have any force if one holds to the view determining law and rights are based on popular consent, which is the basis of the American Experiment. Now, if it didn't exist until 2008 when four judges declared it ex nihilo into being, then again there is the problem of how it is just a few judges can determine a right? The way one answer these questions is the difference between democratic systems and autocracies.

 

[Orontes]

Reply Part II,

I am only asking now because you have not openly declared anything. I'm only asking openly because you've been dancing around the subject trying not to admit it so far. All of your ideas up until this point have shown your lack of respect for homosexuals. If I have been so wrong and you really have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, why not just clearly state that you have no problem with it? I understand that your arguments have been legal in scope. What I'm saying is that your views on these legal topics are skewed by your bias against homosexuality. If you didn't think there was something wrong with it to begin with, you wouldn't even try to make these arguments. You would see it completely differently.

I have tried everything. I've tried explaining how your ideas are wrong, and that doesn't work. I'm just trying to show how you are letting your bias influence your thinking, and that, if you let go of that bias, your thinking on this matter would change.

If you admit I haven't openly declared "anything" then your bigot charges are again bogus. As to my personal views: I oppose homosexuality. I oppose it on sociological grounds, philosophical grounds, and religious grounds. Politically, I think the government should be neutral: neither supporting nor condemning homosexuality. The issue here however, is legal. This has been my focus throughout the thread. I have stated this repeatedly. Legally speaking, rights claims to have legitimacy need popular consent. Even the most determined advocate of gay marriage must recognize the gay marriage question is controversial. If something is controversial, the only way to attach force and legitimacy to a legal stance is through the democratic process. This applies across the board. Those who allow their particular loyalty to an idea to trump the democratic process have sinned against the political ethos of the nation and its founding which is: the people are the ultimate arbiters, of under what and by what, they will be governed.

And I think it would be better for you to focus on the argument, too, without throwing in sneaky, underhanded insults at the other side. If you use the same language for everything, there's no problem. The problem is that you only use that word, which often if not always has a degrading connotation, to describe your opposition, and never to describe anyone on your side.

You are not reading. I used rhetoric to refer to myself in the very first reply to your feigned umbrage. You issues with my rhetoric have been a key point of our exchanges. You see my rhetoric as bigoted etc. because I don't support the invention of rights by four judges. It may be because of my rhetoric that you have opted for an array of personal attacks. This is despite the fact my rhetoric hasn't included any hatred of gays at all. Do you see? If I refer to gay advocate rhetoric, or my rhetoric or your rhetoric I am referring to the form of arguments presented. This should have been obvious. Now, if I said something like "That is just rhetoric!" then I would be most likely condemning something and your umbrage might have had substance. What I said was in regards to a historical question and my take was that a perceived shift in gay advocacy rhetoric is why the meaning of marriage was clarified per statute. To try and take that as an insult is an amazing contortion that seems only possible if one has already decided the other is a bad guy. If that is the case, then you are not really interested in dialogue, but simply looking for an excuse to condemn which means your participation is simply masturbatory.

Yes, just like the common meaning of religion in America is Christianity. That doesn't mean that we should go with that particular definition. We should go with the basic definition. Same-sex marriage is not changing the basic idea, it's changing a detail. Two people who are in love are still pledging their lives to each other. The inter-species is a tired, insulting example. You should know better than to use that in any context here. It's just another underhanded insult like "rhetoric". It has no place in this discussion.

I don't think the common meaning of religion in the U.S. is Christianity. I do think Christianity is the common religion in the States, but I doubt asking people in the U.S. to define religion would find them exclusively equating it to Christianity.

I said nothing about going with a particular definition. There was no advocacy in my reply. My reply was historical in focus: in that I took a change in statute language to undercut a perceived potential challenge. To clarify even further, if a statue simply noted marriage and then an advocate group of a non-traditional marriage structure (gay marriage) challenged any legal proscription based on the statute they would have a stronger case if they could introduce the idea: the meaning of marriage was vague. The change is statute language was meant, I think, to curtail that possibility.

Your hostility to inter-species marriage is not my concern.

Well, that would be fine, if that was what happened. It's not. What happened was the Supreme Court said that this "law" that was in effect was unconstitutional. That's what it's there to do. The banning of gay marriage is not in keeping with the California Constitution, and they had the courage to stand up and say it.

Clearly, You have not read the ruling.

I have tried to demostrate just that. You refuse to see it, though. Again, I'm sorry if the words "bigotry", "illogical" and "irrational" are insulting to you. The fact is that they describe your assertions, though. It would be like talking about Jesus, and I called him the Messiah. When something is the basic definition of a label, I see no reason not to apply the label.

Logic turns on validity and invalidity. If any argument I have put forward is invalid: present it. Otherwise your charge is as vacuous as the charges I am a bigot.

 

[Orontes]

I haven't commented on the raising of kids either by gay, straight or single parents. My focus has been on rights claims and judicial overreach. In a free society laws and rights should be the product of popular will. This is the basis of U.S. Jurisprudence. Any rights claim may make its case in the public square. If a majority agree, the claim will be inculcated in law. The same applies to rights. Should popular will move in a contrary direction then said law/right may be repealed. Prohibition rising to be an Amendment to the Constitution and its repeal is a simple illustration. Popular consent is the basis for legitimacy. This applies to laws, rights and political leadership. Any usurping of this process is a repudiation of popular consent and the democratic model. The product of such a usurpation is illegitimate. Judges do not have the power to create rights. Loyalty to any particular rights claim does not justify ignoring the democratic process by imposing it from above. This is the position I have been arguing.

And this is where you are fundamentally wrong, radical, and anti-American. In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. If the popular will passes a law that violates the rights of a minority, under our system, that law can and should be struck down by the court. Whether that is the case in an individual piece of legislation is up to the courts and only the courts to decide. You may disagree with the court's reasoning, as for example I do in the case of Roe v Wade, but I do not question the right of the court to make the decision. To do so takes issue with one of the most basic tenets of our system of government.

Your comment is flawed. The Constitution is itself a majoritarian product. To appeal to it is to recognize majoritarianism on its face. It was ratified, not imposed. The 27 Amendments were ratified, not imposed. Laws and rights exist by and through popular will. Laws and rights can and are created and reversed by popular will. Prohibition is a simple example. It was created via ratification of the 18th Amendment. It was then repealed by the 21st Amendment. Women didn't have the right to vote until the 19th Amendment, not before The American System is majoritarian. There are examples of injustice and judicial overreach certainly. Roe v. Wade is a perfect illustration. These instances of judicial failing are not the American System, but contra that system. You have confused a part for the whole.

Let me illustrate the point another way. Let's say there is rights claim X. Does that fact someone makes the claim thereby mean it is in fact a right? If I claim I have a right to $10 million a year from the government, is it then so? If the assertion is not sufficient, then where do rights come from. I have explained rights gain force and legitimacy because they reflect popular will (majoritarianism) and they retain that force only insofar as they hold popular will. Now, if you reject that notion that means rights come from another source. What is that? Is it a minority who decides? If so, why should those outside the decision making process accept the decision? You recall the mantra of the American Revolution "no taxation without representation" this is the idea that those not part of the decision making process are not bound by the decisions of that process. If you reject popular will as the core principle that both creates and legitimizes law/rights, then you must put forward another source and then explain why it is legitimate and why those excluded from the process should recognize such edicts.

That's right. And we are all bound by it. And under it, all laws that conflict with it are struck down. That's our system. I understand that you don't like our system, but I'm sorry to tell you that your chances of changing it are slim. Maybe there's another country somewhere whose system of government you like better?

If you agree that the Constitution is itself a majoritarian product, then you must reject your earlier assertion: "In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. " which is a fundamental error. The Constitution did not descend from Heaven. It is the product of the people and amenable to the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you agree that the Constitution is itself a majoritarian product, then you must reject your earlier assertion: "In our society, rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will. " which is a fundamental error. The Constitution did not descend from Heaven. It is the product of the people and amenable to the same.

There's quite a difference between a simple majority and two thirds of the Congress, two thirds of the Senate, and three quarters of the State legislatures.

The Constitution was ratified by the people, so in one sense it's majoritarian, but since a simple majority cannot necessarily change the Constitution, in another sense it's not. The Constitution does not automatically follow the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

 

[madhatter85]

Accept I'm not trying to have eating bread with the butter side down illegalized.

Grammar and spelling for the win

It's Except.

 

[Father Heathen]

Grammar and spelling for the win

It's Except.

Thanks, buddy.

 

[Orontes]

There's quite a difference between a simple majority and two thirds of the Congress, two thirds of the Senate, and three quarters of the State legislatures.

The Constitution was ratified by the people, so in one sense it's majoritarian, but since a simple majority cannot necessarily change the Constitution, in another sense it's not. The Constitution does not automatically follow the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

A super majority and a simple majority are both majoritarian. It is a difference of degree not kind. I've made no argument the Constitution is changeable by a simple majority. I have specifically noted several times it was ratified. The ratification process is clear. I have explained the Constitution and the basis of U.S. politics is majoritarian. This means it is not minoritarian or autocratic. Therefore, the idea "rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will." is wrong on its face. It also means attempts to dictate law or rights outside of a majoritarian schema is contra the thrust and ethos of the nation and must be opposed by all who hold to the democratic process. Rights claims, and would be laws or any similar fair should present themselves in the public square and rise or fall based on the will of the people, not the whimsy or penchants of the few.

 

[Watchmen]

A super majority and a simple majority are both majoritarian. It is a difference of degree not kind. I've made no argument the Constitution is changeable by a simple majority. I have specifically noted several times it was ratified. The ratification process is clear. I have explained the Constitution and the basis of U.S. politics is majoritarian. This means it is not minoritarian or autocratic. Therefore, the idea "rights are based on the Constitution and cannot be denied, even by popular will." is wrong on its face. It also means attempts to dictate law or rights outside of a majoritarian schema is contra the thrust and ethos of the nation and must be opposed by all who hold to the democratic process. Rights claims, and would be laws or any similar fair should present themselves in the public square and rise or fall based on the will of the people, not the whimsy or penchants of the few.

And what will you say when the majority rejects Prop 8?

 

[Magic Man]

Here is a good explanation.

Link


You also must take into account the Twelfth Article of Faith.

Thank you, although, I'm afraid I still don't understand what he was trying to say.

It's off-topic, though. I appreciate your help, but I guess we should let it go for now.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

If only all Mormons would recognize and abide by this.