#47600 Proposition 8

[Nanti-SARRMM]

The issue of gay marriage is being spun as a civil rights issue. But the issue of "gay marriage" has nothing to do with civil rights, but everything to do with acceptance. Gays and lesbians are not seeking for equality of rights. They already have such. They are seeking universal approbation for their choice in lifestyle. This goes beyond tolerance for their choice, which allows them to live however they choose, but does not extend moral approval. This is where the trampling of rights occurs, where we do not have the choice to say "Live as you choose, for we all have the freedom to choose, 'but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.'"

I completely agree.

[yellow m&m]

Sam and I were actually talking about this the other night. I agree that the argument is not about the rights, but about the social status.

The problem is, as crmeatball pointed out, the government shouldn't be involved in that. And just because someone says that they are married does not mean everyone will treat them as such. Even if Prop 8 had failed, even if gay marriage had continued (and it does, around the world), does not mean that people are automatically going to change their minds. It's just a word, and not everyone is going to say "Oh, it's legal now, I guess I was wrong!" No, they still ahve their own perceptions, and only time can change things. And some people will never change, like myself.

[Fredjikrang]

I just wanted to say that I was glad to read what the board writers had to say on the subject, since like many of them, I am quite confused by the issue, and if I wasn't a member of the church, I probably would have been against it as well. It was good to see that there were others with my same concerns, and to see what solutions they came up with.

[TheBlackSheep]

First of all, thanks Fredjikrang. I really appreciate it. I know I'm still confused, and I appreciate knowing that other people are, as well.

Just to advocate for the other side one more time, I think that a huge portion of the population would disagree with the thought that same-sex marriage is about acceptance rather than gaining rights. I therefore think it's wrong for anyone on either side of the debate to pontificate on what this whole debate is "about," since it obviously means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

First of all: California's laws on domestic partnerships give same-sex couples basically the same rights that married couples have without their having to be married. This is true. However, most states do not have these sorts of laws. Even in California where they do have these sorts of rights, though, it basically amounts to a common-law marriage. I think that if the highest level that a straight couple could attain was a common-law marriage, people would revolt, and I daresay that you or I wouldn't be happy in that sort of a situation. They believe that they have the right to marry, and they want their state government to give them that right. To them, the issue is being seen by their government as 100% equal with every other person. They do not believe that the government should be able to distinguish them from any other person one whit under the law.

Gay people are not idiots; they know that they cannot legislate acceptance on a personal or a societal level. They simply want all the same rights as everyone else under the law. I personally do not understand your arguments. Roe v. Wade has not taken away your right to say whatever you please about abortion or the rights of your church to take disciplinary action against anyone who has gone against church policy on the matter. The legalization of euthanasia in Oregon has not changed anything for church members. In Massachusetts people still have all of their rights in both speech and freedom. Nobody says or claims that the legalization of same-sex marriage will equal societal acceptance. It simply has to lead to equality under the law. (If you want to get really specific we might be able to find a couple of examples that pertain to this example, but I personally find your broad statements offensive.)

By the way, those who approve of same-sex marriage don't need any help from the law gaining public approval. Public approval is very much on the rise.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

To them, the issue is being seen by their government as 100% equal with every other person. They do not believe that the government should be able to distinguish them from any other person one whit under the law.

Gay people are not idiots; they know that they cannot legislate acceptance on a personal or a societal level. They simply want all the same rights as everyone else under the law.

I only have stated that it seems it is about social status because from the many sites that I have visited, even reading the the official arguments for it on the California ballot, that they go for the emotional argument for being treated equally after having the same rights. I also understand that the problem is bigger than California, that even if Prop 8 had failed, there would still be that inequality under different state laws, which is unfortunate.

I guess the real question called into place is if being joined together under the term or institution of marriage. If it is a right, then yes they have every reason to pursue it. If it is not a right then they are already treated equally under California Law.

From how I see it, the only way to truly protect the sanctity of marriage, to view it as an institution rather than a right would be to change the laws so that the only legal marriage/union would be a common-law/civil union. I doubt it will pass, but that way everyone is on the same level and churches will be able to marry whom they will. Again, I doubt this may occur, but from how I see it, it is one of the best middle grounds there are, and it works in other countries such as Mexico and Canada.


I guess Black Sheep that many of us, me included, are just trying to find ways to defend prop 8 and marriage other than the church telling us to support it.

[TheBlackSheep]

Actually, I think there might be quite a bit of popular support for just that idea. The first time I heard it was three or four years ago, when it was being advocated by... well, let us say, a crowd that would not be at home on the BYU campus. I agree with you; that could be a viable course of action.

I am all up for looking, and please, spread the word when you find something. I am probably overly antagonistic because the aggravation has been building for years, and if that is the case I apologize. It simply annoys me when either side of this debate uses bad arguments and then points at them like, "SEE? WE'RE RIGHT AND YOU ARE STUPID."

[crmeatball]

I think, rather than trying to find ways to create a secular argument, we need accept the fact that our moral opposition to gay marriage is based upon our religious beliefs. Ultimately, our goal needs to be to protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage. My personal opinion is that I couldn't care less about someone's sexual orientation. What I take issue with is the need to force an individual or religion to not consider something as sin.

[361]

I think, rather than trying to find ways to create a secular argument, we need accept the fact that our moral opposition to gay marriage is based upon our religious beliefs. Ultimately, our goal needs to be to protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage. My personal opinion is that I couldn't care less about someone's sexual orientation. What I take issue with is the need to force an individual or religion to not consider something as sin.

My opposition to gay marriage is based on biological facts...

If it were _supposed_ to work that way... Then it would be biologically possible to reproduce that way...

[Nanti-SARRMM]

My opposition to gay marriage is based on biological facts...

If it were _supposed_ to work that way... Then it would be biologically possible to reproduce that way...

The thing with that though is that to them, it doesn't matter. Some claim, and while it hasn't been proven to be entirely true or false, that they were born gay or naturally have homosexual tendencies. To them it is not about the impossibilities of biology, but that they should be able to have the same type of relationship as any other couple, because of their love for one another. And that extends beyond the legal rights that they have in California and Connecticut, but also the ability to participate in marriage like everyone, because of the stronger connotation and traditions that follow it.

[361]

My opposition to gay marriage is based on biological facts...

If it were _supposed_ to work that way... Then it would be biologically possible to reproduce that way...

The thing with that though is that to them, it doesn't matter. Some claim, and while it hasn't been proven to be entirely true or false, that they were born gay or naturally have homosexual tendencies. To them it is not about the impossibilities of biology, but that they should be able to have the same type of relationship as any other couple, because of their love for one another. And that extends beyond the legal rights that they have in California and Connecticut, but also the ability to participate in marriage like everyone, because of the stronger connotation and traditions that follow it.

Males can't make babies with males...

Females can't make babies with females...

(at least not until our genetic knowledge increases to the point where we can make it possible)

That's what I was going for...

[Yarjka]

My opposition to gay marriage is based on biological facts...

If it were _supposed_ to work that way... Then it would be biologically possible to reproduce that way...

The thing with that though is that to them, it doesn't matter. Some claim, and while it hasn't been proven to be entirely true or false, that they were born gay or naturally have homosexual tendencies. To them it is not about the impossibilities of biology, but that they should be able to have the same type of relationship as any other couple, because of their love for one another. And that extends beyond the legal rights that they have in California and Connecticut, but also the ability to participate in marriage like everyone, because of the stronger connotation and traditions that follow it.

Males can't make babies with males...

Females can't make babies with females...

(at least not until our genetic knowledge increases to the point where we can make it possible)

That's what I was going for...

This all presupposes that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and nothing else. So, all people who biologically cannot create babies, for whatever reason, have no business getting married.

[361]

Yes, well I suppose no matter how I say it someone can come along and easily re-interpret my words to mean whatever they want...

That would be why one book has spawned 6 religions (if you're just counting the major ones...)

[Yarjka]

Yes, well I suppose no matter how I say it someone can come along and easily re-interpret my words to mean whatever they want...

That would be why one book has spawned 6 religions (if you're just counting the major ones...)

Sorry, I didn't mean to misinterpret your words. I simply feel that rejecting gay marriage on a biological basis neglects the many other important aspects of marriage that have nothing to do with sex (the physical act, not gender).

[Nanti-SARRMM]

From what I have seen, the only requirement that most pro gay activists hold for marriage is love, or at least the desire to marry. Because no matter what view you present, the ability to have children, the sanctity of marriage, being between a man a woman, there is an equally sound rebuttal, such as not all married hetersexual couples can have children, the rate of divorce or Las Vegas's many get married quick chapels, or arbitrary requirements such as gender.

To them the most important aspect is love, and that as citizens of this country, they are entitled, or have the right to being joined together under marriage, just as much as anyone else.


As for me, I think this whole mess has been complicated with government involvement, because I am one of those who believe that marriage itself is not a right. At least being joined under that name because of it's multicultural, multi-religious traditional roots. It didn't start out as a government institution and had the government attach rights to it. And since any marriage in the US constitutes a legal civil joining, it complicates things.

And although I understand why same gendered couples want to be married and why they think they have a right to it, I just don't see how they attribute the name of the institution and its traditions to government rights, since the government has nothing to with that. But I am not sure and could very well be wrong in it.

[yellow m&m]

I just read a blog post that I would encourage everyone to read.

I don't know much, which is why I haven't really commented here, I hate saying something, then have someone else turn around and say I'm wrong. But this is different. I read this, and knew I had to give you guys the link. Even if you read nothing else, read this comment (fourth one down). It gives a strange perspective.

Now, I do believe that we need to follow our leaders, and the church did come out with a stance against this (yes, this sounds like I'm just a sheep. I like to call it having faith in those who know more than me). But, this gave me lots to think about. I just wanted to share it with all of you.

[361]

I lol'd at this...

[TheAnswerIs42]

And I laughed at this.

[Portia]

. . . What I take issue with is the need to force an individual or religion to not consider something as sin.

I consider smoking to be incredibly detrimental to individuals and society, but it's still legal . . . this doesn't force me to change my personal beliefs. I think it is a sin to have sex with a new person every week, but that's legal--this doesn't stop me from believing such behavior is morally wrong. Perhaps one would contend about all the ways people would be forced to "not consider something as sin," but this article convinced me that many of those arguments are overblown.

I am glad that the vote has passed, and hope that as Church members and/or citizens we can move on to more compassionate, less divisive societal issues, at least for the time being. I really don't want to see my Church turn into a political stump, because I see no justification in our scriptures, General Conference, or the life of Jesus to make what bubble you fill in on a ballot more important than the intentions of your heart. I liked this paragraph from the PR people:

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

[361]

My friend says that if gays get what they want, then preaching that being gay is a sin will soon fall under hate-speech and all churches that continue to preach anti-gay will be under attack...

What do you think... I certainly agree that this could be on the gay extremist's agenda... But would it actually happen?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

My friend says that if gays get what they want, then preaching that being gay is a sin will soon fall under hate-speech and all churches that continue to preach anti-gay will be under attack...

What do you think... I certainly agree that this could be on the gay extremist's agenda... But would it actually happen?

I think it would, after all, we would be preaching against what constitutes their legal rights. Maybe not immediately, but I could see lawsuits coming against the Church in attempt of it.