Why Did The Mormon Church Become Involved In The Proposition 8 Battle?

[misanthropic_clown]

This is why I should not contribute to threads on this subject. The second I do, I start seeing the backlash. The LDS posters think I need to be excommunicated from the Church for heresy...

I'd like to start off by saying I am not of that sentiment at all, but would you agree some of the overtones in recent leadership talks have been taking less than subtle jabs at people to drop their politics and go with the church on the issue?

I don't really know what to make of it, but I am fearful that one day this issue could be one where members are compelled to support the church or leave. What do you think?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Actually, I would just like to know why, while it does so much good in the world with its many humanitarian works, the LDS church chose to single out gay and lesbian couples to hurt and support the denial of their civil rights?

Ironically,I'd bet we'd have no problem supplying same sex couples with humanitarian aid.

But on the topic, I do not think there is an evident satisfactory reason. The members who support it take it on faith that the leaders are right that this issue is a significant one to take on and would have negative consequences for the church and/or society as a whole if left unfought, and those who don't get slung in a torturous middle ground of being out of sync with both camps.

 

[Green Gaia]

Ironically,I'd bet we'd have no problem supplying same sex couples with humanitarian aid.

But on the topic, I do not think there is an evident satisfactory reason. The members who support it take it on faith that the leaders are right that this issue is a significant one to take on and would have negative consequences for the church and/or society as a whole if left unfought, and those who don't get slung in a torturous middle ground of being out of sync with both camps.

I still don't get it. Why us?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I still don't get it. Why us?

I don't think I can supply you with adequate reason why the same-sex marriage issue was picked up so strongly when the church has been rather politically neutral. I'd guess that it is because the doctrines of traditional marriage and the importance of the traditional family as a unit in society are rather central to our faith and the church did not want to see these principles eroded. But as Katzpur has pointed out, same sex couple and their families will not cease to exist by insisting on not making their existence official.

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't think I can supply you with adequate reason why the same-sex marriage issue was picked up so strongly when the church has been rather politically neutral. I'd guess that it is because the doctrines of traditional marriage and the importance of the traditional family as a unit in society are rather central to our faith and the church did not want to see these principles eroded. But as Katzpur has pointed out, same sex couple and their families will not cease to exist by insisting on not making their existence official.

Traditional marriage will still exist because straight people are still going to marry too and no one is trying to erode your religion's principles or beliefs. We just don't want it forced on us. We're not trying to take away your rights, why support taking away ours? I don't understand!

 

[Green Gaia]

But as Katzpur has pointed out, same sex couple and their families will not cease to exist by insisting on not making their existence official.

Of course not. We're not going away and we're not giving up on this issue. I don't care if your religion acknowledges us our existence or not, but I demand that the secular government that I pay taxes too, does. It's what is right and what is fair. Why can't the LDS, (and the religious opposition in general), see that? The same freedom that allows you and everyone else to practice religion as they see fit should extend to people to marry the person of their choosing.

 

[Katzpur]

I'd like to start off by saying I am not of that sentiment at all, but would you agree some of the overtones in recent leadership talks have been taking less than subtle jabs at people to drop their politics and go with the church on the issue?

I don't really know what to make of it, but I am fearful that one day this issue could be one where members are compelled to support the church or leave. What do you think?

I don't think that will ever happen. Not in a million years. Thankfully.

 

[Magic Man]

After all, the Church has spent over 11 Billion Dollars on humanitarian aid. Who are you to demand more?

Who's demanding more? I'd be perfectly fine if they just kept the other millions they spent on Prop 8. I don't care what they do with it, as long as they don't use it to harm people like that.

 

[Storm]

Well, if it helps at all, Katzpur, I find you quite open-minded and tolerant (and quite friendly too), and quite respect the fact that while you disagree with homosexuality, you respect the rights of people as consenting adults, and would allow them to make their own decisions if you had a choice on the matter.

And your church does do quite a lot of good, but occasional acts like this deserve to be brought up and discussed.

I don't think that there is anyone bashing the LDS church in general, just for their particular actions on this one issue. That's the way I have been interpreting it, but perhaps you see this last part somewhat differently.

ITA, Katz is awesome.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Now this is not to the point of the OP. But isn't some group always trying impose some standard or morality on the rest in democracy? Surely, no civilization can survive without a standard of morality- and I don't think at any time there will be a total consensus on every issue.

I am for the separation of Church and State- but not of law and morality (certainly at least, not a total separation). In certain spheres, freedom prevails as a value over legislating morality- but not in all.

There is no doubt that society must enforce some type of moral code - and it uses its laws to do so. No one questions that murdering another person is wrong, so consequently, that particular action is considered immoral and illegal. Notice that one does not need a religious basis to come to the conclusion that murder is wrong, or that it should be illegal.

Conversely, society does not outlaw the overconsumption of sugars, which, although harmful to the individual, does not rise to the same level as murder.

The reason for the discrepancy is that, in the case of murder, the state has a very clear interest. In the instance of overconsumption of sugars, the state has no real compelling interest.

In the instance of same sex marriage, I see absolutely no compelling interest for the government - do you? What happens in someone's bedroom, between consenting adults, is of absolutely no interest to the state.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

ITA, Katz is awesome.

Okay, I give. What does "ITA" mean?

 

[Storm]

I Totally Agree.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I Totally Agree.

Thanks, Storm.

As an old gasbag, I'm not always "hip" to the acronyms on the internet.

 

[Storm]

No worries, hon, seems like nobody on this forum knows what it means. Every time I use it, somebody asks, and I think "I should stop using this one." But then I forget.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"But simply trying to enforce a standard of morality into law is, I do not think, in a democracy a bad thing."

It most certainly IS when the "standard of morality" being imposed comes from and is justified by nothing more than ancient myths.

When the theists can show a public policy need for the state to be become involved in the details of a marriage contract they will have a point.

And they would have a point IF the state was attempting tell them how to order marriages within their own faith. (fwiw, I'm not convinced the state has any right to interfere with polygamy or polyandry.)

But such is NOT the case with SSM. No one is suggesting anyone be required to abandon or even alter their religious faith.

Keep thy religion to thyself.

What is fracking HARD about that?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Thanks, Storm.

As an old gasbag, I'm not always "hip" to the acronyms on the internet.

As one older gasbag to a younger one - here.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I'm not convinced the state has any right to interfere with polygamy or polyandry...

Personally, I don't care if it is polygamy, polyandry, same sex marriage, or any other arrangement - as long as it occurs between CONSENTING ADULTS - the state has no compelling interest.

One caveat - If the situation develops that any children become compromised, then the state has a legitimate interest.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As one older gasbag to a younger one - here.

Gee, thanks. I didn't think it was possible, but after visiting the site (and bookmarking it), I feel even older than I did five minutes ago.

Much obliged.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

LOL

Hey, ya gotta learn to go with the flow, dude.

 

[Autodidact]

This century began in the year 2000, which is the twenty-first century. Last century began in 1900, which was the twentieth century.

Oh yeah. *feels dumb.*... *and old*.