LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

You're right, you're not the only ones who oppose it. All the others who do are wrong, too. They're just not as vocal against it as you are. An appeal to majority only makes your argument look worse. There are so many examples to use to show how big a fallacy that is, but the easiest is slavery. The majority accepted and supported slavery at one point. Did that make it right?

Let's get this clear, TO YOU, I am wrong. IF IT WERE SO CLEAR CUT THERE WOULD NOT EVEN BE A DEBATE. so stop acting self-righteous about it. "You and everyoen else who thinks the way you do is wrong" boo hoo boo boo. Get over it, not everyone thinks the way you do. you will vote your conscience and i will vote mine.

Homosexuals are not slaves, do not even try to put them in the same category. you cannot use Race or gender arguments when trying to rationalize homosexuality because race and gender are not behavioral.

Your church will never be forced to perform same-sex marriages. The examples you or someone else gave about the government forcing some religious organizations to go against their religious beliefs have been debunked here and in another thread. If you are doing government work, they will expect you to go by their standards. If you are not, then you can do whatever you want.

Yeah right, i'm supposed to take some people's words for it when they are not even in a position to make a statement like that? you're funny. And when our religious freedoms are taken away from us am i supposed to appeal to the 4 people on some random internet forum who said "It won't be that way."

The only corrupt people in this equation are the ones holding onto the ban on homosexual marriage for dear life. One day, we'll look back on this as we currently look back on the Civil Rights movement. That will be a fine day, but , for now, we still have people like you who feel you're entitled to control others' private lives.

You can have your opinion just as much as i can have mine, Except you are telling me that i cannot have this opinion. huh, Funny. I never told ANYONE they were wrong for thier opinions on this issue, I stated my beliefs and you continually berate me for my beliefs.

One person on any forum will not change my mind on this issue because it is unequivocal for me. Get it? good. see you at the voting booth.

 

[Autodidact]

Let's get this clear, TO YOU, I am wrong. IF IT WERE SO CLEAR CUT THERE WOULD NOT EVEN BE A DEBATE. so stop acting self-righteous about it. "You and everyoen else who thinks the way you do is wrong" boo hoo boo boo. Get over it, not everyone thinks the way you do. you will vote your conscience and i will vote mine.

Homosexuals are not slaves, do not even try to put them in the same category. you cannot use Race or gender arguments when trying to rationalize homosexuality because race and gender are not behavioral.

Well, that's a matter of debate, but discrimination need not be based on inherent genetics, and is still wrong. You, as a Mormon, should know this.

Yeah right, i'm supposed to take some people's words for it when they are not even in a position to make a statement like that? you're funny. And when our religious freedoms are taken away from us am i supposed to appeal to the 4 people on some random internet forum who said "It won't be that way."

No, appeal to the Constitution, a document which you seem to neither know nor respect.

You can have your opinion just as much as i can have mine, Except you are telling me that i cannot have this opinion. huh, Funny. I never told ANYONE they were wrong for thier opinions on this issue, I stated my beliefs and you continually berate me for my beliefs.

Have the opinion. It's your perfect right. You can have it. What you should not do is require the rest of us to abide by it. Surely you can see how wrong that is.

One person on any forum will not change my mind on this issue because it is unequivocal for me. Get it? good. see you at the voting booth.

Always a pleasure to talk to someone with an open mind.

 

[madhatter85]

Well, that's a matter of debate, but discrimination need not be based on inherent genetics, and is still wrong. You, as a Mormon, should know this.

Science falls short in this area. It is believed there is a genetic proponent and there very well may be, But the idea that just because someone has that particular Gene does not mean they lose volition, or that they will be that way. Watch the movie "Gattica" and you'll understand. Then, read this article-

Mormon Times - Science on gays falls short

 

[Watchmen]

Science falls short in this area. It is believed there is a genetic proponent and there very well may be, But the idea that just because someone has that particular Gene does not mean they lose volition, or that they will be that way. Watch the movie "Gattica" and you'll understand. Then, read this article-

Mormon Times - Science on gays falls short

I don't think you understood Auto's post. She's saying that discrimination may exist outside of genetic discrimination. For example, religious discrimination is wrong and that's not genetic. Just the same, homosexual discrimination is wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

Let's get this clear, TO YOU, I am wrong. IF IT WERE SO CLEAR CUT THERE WOULD NOT EVEN BE A DEBATE. so stop acting self-righteous about it. "You and everyoen else who thinks the way you do is wrong" boo hoo boo boo. Get over it, not everyone thinks the way you do. you will vote your conscience and i will vote mine.

Homosexuals are not slaves, do not even try to put them in the same category. you cannot use Race or gender arguments when trying to rationalize homosexuality because race and gender are not behavioral.

Do you realize how much like a playground bully you sound? I just realized what your tone reminded me of.

It is pretty clear cut, and that's why I find it hard to believe that it's this hard. I say you are wrong because you are trying to force others to live like you. That's why you're wrong. Not because you think homosexuality is bad. When it comes to other groups, like racial groups or religious groups or pretty much any other groups, I know you agree with my principle. You just, for some reason, think that it's ok in this case to discriminate. You think you're justified.

I've heard the behavioral thing before. I could argue that it doesn't matter, but it's easier just to use religion. That is behavioral. It's something you can choose to follow or not. Allowing homosexuals to live their lives as they want to as long as they aren't hurting anyone is no different than everyone else letting you live yours as you want as long as you're not hurting anyone.

Yeah right, i'm supposed to take some people's words for it when they are not even in a position to make a statement like that? you're funny. And when our religious freedoms are taken away from us am i supposed to appeal to the 4 people on some random internet forum who said "It won't be that way."

No, you're supposed to be able to see things for what they are. It's not going to happen, and not because I said so. It's not going to happen because that's not how things work. It's not how things have worked here, it's not how they work now, and that's never going to change. Nobody's making anyone go against their religious beliefs. The examples that were laid out before were shown to be not what you made them seem to be. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking you to look at the facts, leaving your bias aside. That would be enough to show you that you have nothing to worry about. The question is whether or not you can do that.

You can have your opinion just as much as i can have mine, Except you are telling me that i cannot have this opinion. huh, Funny. I never told ANYONE they were wrong for thier opinions on this issue, I stated my beliefs and you continually berate me for my beliefs.

I'm not telling you you can't have an opinion. How many different ways do I have to say this? I don't care about your personal beliefs. Think whatever you want. Just don't make others conform to your personal beliefs. I realize that you have different beliefs and opinions, and I acknowledge them. I also acknowledge your right to have them and live your life by them. You don't do the same for me. You acknowledge that I have a different opinion, but you want me to not be able to live my life by my opinion.

Again, I am not berating your beliefs. We are having a debate. That's what this forum is for. Aside from that, we are not even discussing your beliefs about homosexuality. We are discussing your desire to impose those beliefs on everyone else. I'll say it again. I don't care what you think about homosexuality, as long as you only hold yourself to that standard.

One person on any forum will not change my mind on this issue because it is unequivocal for me. Get it? good. see you at the voting booth.

I'm hoping that many people in many different areas might have a shot at changing your mind. Even if not, again, we are here in a debate forum. That's what it's here for. Telling me I'm not going to change your mind is a little irrelevant.

I also don't need your hostility or condescension. I'm not the one who's not getting it. And please stop with the voting stuff. I know from you saying it over and over, that you are going to vote a certain way. That's the whole problem. I and others here are able to separate our personal beliefs from our voting beliefs. I wish you could do the same. Why are you so concerned with how others live their lives anyway? Is it not good enough for your life to be good and sin-free?


Now, just to make this perfectly clear one more time:

I don't care what your personal opinion of homosexuality is. All I care about is how you treat others. I don't want you to stop having your personal beliefs. I just want you to stop trying to impose them on everyone else.

 

[Watchmen]

Do you realize how much like a playground bully you sound like? I just realized what your tone reminded me of.

I always found the best thing to do to playground bullies was to kick them in the balls. Maybe that needs a separate thread.

 

[fantome profane]

It's funny how you still try to compare us to homosexuals. As if we ever tried to change any laws. We did not lobby for the proposition. We were not the creators of it. We are merely supporting it by voting for it. Yet you act as if we thought it all up. We are not the only ones who oppose gay mariage. Last i checked the Majority of this country opposes it. Not just Mormons.

Interesting argument. If the significant factor is that they are the ones trying to change the law and you are trying to prevent the law from changing, how would you advise your Mormon brothers and sisters living in Canada? If the issue were to come up again would you advise the Canadian Mormons that they should not try to change the law concerning same sex marriage in Canada?

Yeah right, i'm supposed to take some people's words for it when they are not even in a position to make a statement like that? you're funny. And when our religious freedoms are taken away from us am i supposed to appeal to the 4 people on some random internet forum who said "It won't be that way."

Your position would be much better served if you were to argue consistently in favour of freedom of religion. Were you to do so hopefully that would decrease the likelihood of such a challenge ever being made, or of it being taken seriously. And in the event that a serious challenge were made to the freedom of the Mormon church to refuse to perform same sex marriages you would have a strong consistent legal constitutional argument to bring to your defense.

But what you are doing now is putting your freedom of religion very much at risk. You are arguing that the state does have the right to impose the religious values of the majority. You are trying to give the state the right to decide which rites performed in a church should be valid and which are invalid. If you give the state the power to do this when your viewpoint is in the majority, you will not have a leg to stand on when your viewpoint is in the minority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Marriage is not a "Right," it is a privilege.

Not under California law.

It's a shame to see how the corrupt individuals of this country are trying to override DOMA, when it was voted in and signed by the president of the united states (Clinton, a Democrat by the way).

The Defense of Marriage Act has not been overridden.

And if the country get's rid of DOMA, then guess what buddy. we WILL be required by the government to honor homosexual marirages as valid regardless of our freedom to religious enjoyment. because there will come a time when you need something from us and we will not give it based on our religious beliefs and then you will cause an even bugger ruckus.

Freedom of religion would imply the freedom to not marry someone in your church if to do so would violate the tenets of your faith, but it does not imply that you get to impose your views on others.

I think that if freedom of religion is a part of the same-sex marriage debate at all, it's in the fact that religions and denominations that support them have been prohibited from performing them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But what you are doing now is putting your freedom of religion very much at risk. You are arguing that the state does have the right to impose the religious values of the majority. You are trying to give the state the right to decide which rites performed in a church should be valid and which are invalid. If you give the state the power to do this when your viewpoint is in the majority, you will not have a leg to stand on when your viewpoint is in the minority.

Which was not that long ago, in fact.

Apparently, hindsight is not always 20-20.

 

[Autodidact]

Science falls short in this area. It is believed there is a genetic proponent and there very well may be, But the idea that just because someone has that particular Gene does not mean they lose volition, or that they will be that way. Watch the movie "Gattica" and you'll understand. Then, read this article-

Mormon Times - Science on gays falls short

You response did not address my concern. It is just as wrong to discriminate against people one the basis of their behavior, such as their religion, as their race.

 

[Orontes]

This thread has certainly move forward.

I recall earlier in the thread you stated you have read the ruling. The above comment makes that hard to believe. The majority opinion has extended discussion on, and explicitly states, sexual orientation is a suspect classification and thereby entitled to strict scrutiny even while admitting such contravenes the great majority of out of state decisions that outright reject such an idea, and further that The U.S. Supreme Court has never declared sexual orientation is entitled to any form of scrutiny beyond the rational basis review. Sexual orientation was never even granted quasi-suspect classification. Your comment is utterly wrong.

I stand corrected. I had thought that I recalled the ruling as being based only on fundamental right analysis, while it also includes a finding that sexual orientation is a suspect classification for discrimination.

Quite.

(T)he court actually had two bases to its ruling: suspect class and fundamental right. While I agree with the court, I doubt that SCOTUS would. However, I strongly aver that SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, so it doesn't matter.

The difficulty here is the base meaning of marriage has not been same gender, but cross gender. Your claim rests on changing the meaning of the concept

 

[Orontes]

Rape is illegal because of law noting such, but the issue is whether it was made illegal due to a moral objection to the act, which seems more than obvious.

No, that's not the issue. The issue is why it is illegal, not why it was made illegal.

Rape is illegal because of statute noting such. Rape was made illegal due to moral objection to the act.

If you are changing from a "morality is not imposed" stance to a morality shouldn't be imposed position: why do you think "generally the idea is not to impose morality" or "that is not the way it is supposed to work"? Where are you getting this idea from?

From the fact that our laws are in place not to impose morality, but to insure a safe, secure environment for citizens to thrive in.

Where is this fact derived from? How was it determined? If you place any valuation on "safe" and "secure environment" how are you going to avoid a moral referent without simply being incoherent?

This stance would mean reestablishing slavery, removing the right to vote from women, only allowing male property owners voting privileges, removing 17 amendments from the Constitution, making the Constitution and its remaining Amendments only applicable to the Federal Government, the reestablishing of state specific and enforced faiths i.e. Maryland is for Catholics, Rhode Island for Methodists etc. The reestablishing of legions of blue laws. These are only a few examples of the changes that would occur.

As has already been clarified, let's take out the founding fathers. The point is that the goal is equality for everyone. That was the original intent of the founding fathers, which is why I mentioned them. The problem was that they were living in a different world where certain groups of people were pretty much not even considered people.

Actually the theoretical pedigree of the Founding Father's ideas turns on classical republicanism which itself is based on the citizen model. It is by definition exclusionary. There was no "equality for everyone" idea as I pointed out with examples of women, slaves etc. You cannot appeal to the Founding Fathers for your notion. Now, if you wish to have "untouchable law" then you must ultimately abandon the idea of the democratic model, since democracy (and all representative governmental variants) is based on law being the product of the people.

In addition, you still have the larger problems I mentioned: who decides what that law is, why should "they" be able to decide such, and why should those impacted by a law they can never change accept such a situation?

"They" should be able to decide such because I don't believe the general population should rule everything. "They" should be able to decide certain things because not everyone is reasonable and able to set aside their biases.

You have illustrated the base difference between our views: those who support an elitist and autocratic model (law imposed by above by those who "know best") and those who support law as the product of popular will in a free society.

 

[McBell]

You have illustrated the base difference between our views: those who support an elitist and autocratic model (law imposed by above by those who "know best") and those who support law as the product of popular will in a free society.

I call foul.


Perhaps you would be so kind as to explaining WHY the blessed majority want same sex marriage illegal?
It could not possibly be because of "law imposed by above by those who "know best"" could it?
Or is that perhaps some how not relevant?

 

[Orontes]

I call foul.


Perhaps you would be so kind as to explaining WHY the blessed majority want same sex marriage illegal?
It could not possibly be because of "law imposed by above by those who "know best"" could it?
Or is that perhaps some how not relevant?

Foul?

I don't know a majority that want same sex marriage illegal. I don't know any advocates of arresting gays who undergo a marriage ceremony. I know many people who don't want same sex marriage recognized by the state, let alone imposed as a right.

I don't understand your last two sentences. The base question is where do rights derive from? My position is in political discourse, rights and law should be the product of the people i.e. popular sovereignty. As such, there are no rights or laws that are not the product of the popular will. Therefore, an individual or small group of individuals cannot declare an X as a right or impose it without violating this basic notion. Others do not agree, but appeal to elites to dictate law and rights which is the root of the autocratic mind.

 

[McBell]

Foul?

I don't know a majority that want same sex marriage illegal. I don't know any advocates of arresting gays who undergo a marriage ceremony. I know many people who don't want same sex marriage recognized by the state, let alone imposed as a right.

I don't understand your last two sentences. The base question is where do rights derive from? My position is in political discourse, rights and law should be the product of the people i.e. popular sovereignty. As such, there are no rights or laws that are not the product of the popular will. Therefore, an individual or small group of individuals cannot declare an X as a right or impose it without violating this basic notion. Others do not agree, but appeal to elites to dictate law and rights which is the root of the autocratic mind.

Perhaps I will be back later to entertain you with your semantics game.
Right now it is merely boring me.

 

[Magic Man]

Rape is illegal because of statute noting such. Rape was made illegal due to moral objection to the act.

Are you certain of that? Can you give me something showing that it was moral objection that originally caused it to be considered illegal?

Where is this fact derived from? How was it determined? If you place any valuation on "safe" and "secure environment" how are you going to avoid a moral referent without simply being incoherent?

I have no idea what you mean. Doing something to insure a safe, secure environment and doing it because it's moral are two different things.

Actually the theoretical pedigree of the Founding Father's ideas turns on classical republicanism which itself is based on the citizen model. It is by definition exclusionary. There was no "equality for everyone" idea as I pointed out with examples of women, slaves etc. You cannot appeal to the Founding Fathers for your notion. Now, if you wish to have "untouchable law" then you must ultimately abandon the idea of the democratic model, since democracy (and all representative governmental variants) is based on law being the product of the people.

You don't seem to have actually read my response. I would invite you to read it, and then reply again.

You have illustrated the base difference between our views: those who support an elitist and autocratic model (law imposed by above by those who "know best") and those who support law as the product of popular will in a free society.

Since I assume you mean that I support an elitist and autocratic model based on those who "know best", I have to wonder why you would claim to have a different view from me. You obviously feel that the religious people who "know best" when it comes to marriage and morality have the right to impose laws based on that knowledge. That is why same-sex marriage is banned in the first place. Remember when you were making the argument that rape was made illegal because of moral objections? Do you see how inconsistent it is to assert that, and then assume that moral objections have nothing to do with why same-sex marriage is illegal?

 

[Orontes]

Foul?

I don't know a majority that want same sex marriage illegal. I don't know any advocates of arresting gays who undergo a marriage ceremony. I know many people who don't want same sex marriage recognized by the state, let alone imposed as a right.

I don't understand your last two sentences. The base question is where do rights derive from? My position is in political discourse, rights and law should be the product of the people i.e. popular sovereignty. As such, there are no rights or laws that are not the product of the popular will. Therefore, an individual or small group of individuals cannot declare an X as a right or impose it without violating this basic notion. Others do not agree, but appeal to elites to dictate law and rights which is the root of the autocratic mind.

Perhaps I will be back later to entertain you with your semantics game.
Right now it is merely boring me.

Hmmm, you ask a question, but don't like the answer because it takes your question seriously. There is nothing I can do about that.

 

[Orontes]

Are you certain of that? Can you give me something showing that it was moral objection that originally caused it to be considered illegal?

Well, I consider it a rather mundane point. I guess we could go back and look at the state of law in California in 1848 or Colonial law or Common Law back into the 12th Century etc. I think what we would find is ultimately the coda found there were based in a larger religious milieu: the Judeo-Christian Tradition where acts like rape were condemned and the moral referent is clear. Of course, the point needn't only be about origins, but the fact rape remains illegal. This is due to popular sentiment. You could go out and ask 20 or so people "Do you think rape should be illegal?". I would guess, most if not all would say, yes it should. Then you can ask those who think it should be "Why should it be illegal?" I think you will find the vast majority will answer in moral terms.


[/font]

I have no idea what you mean. Doing something to insure a safe, secure environment and doing it because it's moral are two different things.

I'll explain, if your stance is no longer morality is not legislated, but a morality should not be legislated posture, and then you put forward law is to insure a safe and secure environment for the citizenry, (which are meant as counters to any moral appeal): the difficulty is the valuation of "safe" and "secure". If one asks: why is the law to insure safety and security? If the answer is safety and security are good things, or there is reference to responsibility, duty etc. The language all indicates a moral stance. This undercuts the idea morality shouldn't be legislated. Does that flush out the dilemma better?

You don't seem to have actually read my response. I would invite you to read it, and then reply again.

OK, this is what I got from your replies. Tell me if I've misread or misunderstood. You initially claimed untouchable law should be the law set up by the Founding Fathers. You gave "equality for everyone" as an example. It was pointed out that law set up by the Founding Fathers was very touchable. A whole host of laws have been changed. Slavery was one simple example. It was also pointed out "equality for everyone" wasn't a legal posture of the Founding Fathers. Again, slavery illustrates the point. Now, in the immediately prior reply to my post you state "let's take out the founding fathers", but in the next two sentences you state "equality for everyone" was the goal and this was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So, you reintroduced the Founding Fathers as a referent. I responded to this:

"Actually the theoretical pedigree of the Founding Father's ideas turns on classical republicanism which itself is based on the citizen model. It is by definition exclusionary. There was no "equality for everyone" idea as I pointed out with examples of women, slaves etc. You cannot appeal to the Founding Fathers for your notion."​

The universalist appeal you attempt to ground in the goals and intents of the Founding Fathers is anachronistic. Now, the last portion of my reply looked back at your idea of untouchable law. I pointed out that this idea runs contra the base impulse of democracy which is law as a product of the popular will. So, as I see it: if you wish to hold to the idea there is untouchable law, you cannot appeal to the legal founding of the nation. Further, you face adopting a decidedly anti-democratic principle.

Since I assume you mean that I support an elitist and autocratic model based on those who "know best", I have to wonder why you would claim to have a different view from me. You obviously feel that the religious people who "know best" when it comes to marriage and morality have the right to impose laws based on that knowledge. That is why same-sex marriage is banned in the first place. Remember when you were making the argument that rape was made illegal because of moral objections? Do you see how inconsistent it is to assert that, and then assume that moral objections have nothing to do with why same-sex marriage is illegal?

My stance has been and is, law (rights claim etc.) to be legitimate must reflect popular will. If a group of citizens vote to make X or Y a law or restrict X or Y from state sanction, the motivations for their vote may be religious, or any other thing, but the reason the enactment has ultimate legitimacy is because the people have spoken to the issue. I have made no claims to untouchable law or rights determined by minority fiat. One basic definition of law is justified coercion. . The base justification, I put forward, is the voice of the people declared on the matter i.e. weed is illegal. This is why a cop can legitimately arrest someone for selling doobies.

Let me put things another way. If there is idea X in dispute. Some might think X is immoral, others that X is moral. Others might have completely different views on X (economic analysis etc.). Their arguments and the rhetoric behind each, can and should occur (be presented) in the public square. If one side or the other should sway a majority, then that is a justifiable basis for legal action on X. The motivations for why a person votes is distinct from my position. My position is concerned with process informing legitimacy, not any particular rhetorical posture.

Now, the stance I've gotten from you is there is untouchable law and/or law to be determined by elites. The common people cannot be trusted. If that is the view you wish to push forward, then we have antithetical positions. I believe in the people informing their government and you hold the elite should have this power.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't feel like getting back into this with you right now, Orontes. The bottom line is that anyone can find justification for anything, if they want to, but that doesn't make it right. California finally got it right, legally and morally. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but your arguments are all either irrelevant or inconsistent or illogical.

 

[Orontes]

I don't feel like getting back into this with you right now, Orontes. The bottom line is that anyone can find justification for anything, if they want to, but that doesn't make it right. California finally got it right, legally and morally. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but your arguments are all either irrelevant or inconsistent or illogical.

That is fine.

As to your parting shot, it appears simply emotive. There are no logical flaws in my argument(s). Further, how law is determined is fundamental to the political process. How one answered that question spoke in large measure to which side one was on in the American Revolution.