Page 36 of 42 FirstFirst ... 26323334353637383940 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,080 of 1238

Thread: Marriage Equality Thread

  1. #1051
    LA, I just put two and two together when I saw your post mentioning death threats, and now recognize why you were targeted. (Your secret is safe with me, Superman). I absolutely do not condone any kind of violence over political debates. That is the realm of modern jihadists and 19th-century anarchists. Threats have no place in healthy discourse.

    However I am pleased that your efforts in some not-insignificant ways ultimately helped lead to the decision on Fri.

    I still love you, ya lumpy old Hedgehog.

    This is what happened in Heaven the past few days:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #1052
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    LA, thanks for the explanation. I agree this will be a contentious issue for decades to come.

    That said, I have two bones of contention to pick with you.

    1) I will see your Brendan Eich, and raise you countless victims of gay bashing, Harvey Milks, and Mathew Shepards and Stuart Matises and the seven (and counting) young gay Mormon men in Utah who have committed suicide since L. Tom Perry's "Counterfeit lifestyles" talk in the April 2015 Gen Con.

    2) I can't believe you actually had the audacity to attempt to use the "I actually have some Black friends..." defense.
    Who are these seven men who committed suicide because of Perry's talk? I haven't seen or heard anything about this.

  3. #1053
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorcho View Post
    I made the mistake of bringing up Friday's same sex supreme court decision with my 13-14 year old Sunday school group today. We noodled it and talked about it, and they get both sides, but I feel like I'm the one that left the class feeling conflicted and bewildered.

    This does seem like it is the issue for our time. I do believe this is a draw a line in the sand moment for the LDS Church.
    I agree it is enlightening and bewildering to speak with 13-14 yr old kids about this issue. They don't see the problem and seem confused that adults have such a divide on the issue of lgbt acceptance. They have much more of a live and let live outlook on life, and they are being raised with access to all of the knowledge of the world available at their fingertips.

    They will have a significantly broader outlook on life than previous generations, and the world will change because of it. I think it will be fascinating to see what they do because of it.

  4. #1054
    Yesterday's SCOTUS action at church: Missed Sacrament meeting, so I can't report on any of that. Not a mention during Sunday school, since I was the one teaching those ambivalent 12 year olds. I was then supposed to teach the Teacher's but we got called in to join with the Priests. 3/4 of the class was going over snippets from the Mormon Newsroom response to the SCOTUS decision. When the Bishop asked for some response on their interactions at school, one of the Priests related a story about a time when a gay kid wanted to talk to him, and so this kid responded "hey man, I'm not going to hate on you or judge you or anything like that. You do you and I'll do me." I wanted to interject that the church actually doesn't support that either.

    Next week's patriotic testimonials seem like they'll be a good set up, but I'll likely miss that Sacrament meeting as well.

  5. #1055
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    You'll have to read Roberts' dissent, or maybe just excerpts from it. Legal scholars from all over the map will have plenty to say about this decision. For one thing, it uses the Due Process clause to find the right to gay marriage, not the Equal Protection clause, which almost everyone agrees provides a stronger basis for that right. Badly-reasoned Supreme Court decisions cause lots of "Pandora's box" problems. I think just like Roe v. Wade, this decision -- already being called one of the most significant in the last 100 years -- will be litigated over for decades.

    Here are some Roberts excerpts. His beef arises from the majority's approach: start with a conclusion — X is a good idea, therefore X is constitutional; Y is a bad idea, therefore Y is unconstitutional — and then reason backwards.

    On the proper role of the federal judiciary:

    [T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.

    Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.

    The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

    On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage:

    Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.

    The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

    The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”

    Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

    On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage:

    The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.

    On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage:

    Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

    When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

    On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage:

    Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”



    LA, it's just a damn shame that we can't just put this thing to a vote to protect these folks' rights. And do you know the ONLY reason this thing wouldn't win in several states? Religion. Because, according to many Christians, god doesn't approve of gay marriage.

    I agree with the ruling, but the dissenters make some great points in their slippery slope analysis. It's a damn shame too many people care about what someone else is doing that really shouldn't matter to them. And, in my opinion, those same someones are going to run and hide a decade form now from their current opposition to gay marriage--just like you can't find a damn soul in this town who will openly tell you they strongly supported prop 8, even though they are all over the place.

  6. #1056
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Is religious belief not an acceptable reason to hold a particular political opinion?

    It sure is. In fact, there are still some folks around who hold a religious belief that races shouldn't intermarry. And that religious belief is a damn shame, in my opinion.

  7. #1057
    Beware of the fallacy of composition. That there are are dumb religious beliefs does not mean that all religious beliefs are dumb.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  8. #1058
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

    First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage, as summarized here:

    The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. 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.
    We always made a point of standing for those ideals, not against anyone or anything. Most of us thought we'd lose the Prop 8 election -- internal polling showed a 48%-48% tie the night before the vote. Part of me wishes we had lost. It didn't matter, in the long run; we were simply standing for what we believed. Like Americans.

    Second, comparing the above position to opposition to interracial marriage is a smear and intellectually dishonest. I'll always resist it and I hope it never becomes the prevailing view. It if does, however, I'm willing to live with the consequences.

    Third, we're going to do our level best to be charitable Christians no matter what. NWUF objects to me saying I have gay friends, but it is still important to me. One silver lining in the SCOTUS decision is that at least the tension over the legality issue has been resolved.
    Last edited by LA Ute; 06-29-2015 at 03:20 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  9. #1059
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

    First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage, as summarized here:



    We always made a point of standing for those ideals, not against anyone or anything. Most of us thought we'd lose the Prop 8 election -- internal polling showed a 48%-48% tie the night before the vote. Part of me wishes we had lost. It didn't matter, in the long run; we were simply standing for what we believed. Like Americans.

    Second, comparing the above position to opposition to interracial marriage is a smear and intellectually dishonest. I'll always resist it and I hope it never becomes the prevailing view. It if does, however, I'm willing to live with the consequences.

    Third, we're going to do our level best to be charitable Christians no matter what. NWUF objects to me saying I have gay friends, but it is still important to me. One silver lining in the SCOTUS decision is that at least the tension over the legality issue has been resolved.
    You're a great guy, but it's not a smear. It's very, very similar, unfortunately.

    As to what you believe, that has changed dramatically. You need to go back and read what John Taylor, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young and others said about marriage between just a man and a woman.

    Worse, gay marriage isn't stopping you in any way, shape or form from your belief that your type of marriage is "ordained of God." So why are you so concerned about other marriages?

  10. #1060
    I'm guessing some people make the distinction between interracial marriage and same sex marriage based on homosexuality being perceived as a choice and race being biological, when others see both race and sexual orientation as social constructs with a strong biological basis. I think the latter is much more widely believed by younger people who have much more plastic views concerning racial identification as well sexual orientation.

    I wonder how much of this issue goes back to some people initially taking a side against gay marriage back in the 70's when the first cases seemed to be cropping up. At the time, it would have seemed outlandish I'm sure to support gay marriage. I imagine that the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s may have reinforced for many people their view of the terrible social consequences of openly practiced homosexuality. It sort of makes sense to me that people who formed their opinions of the wider social ramifications of homosexuality in this time period may have a very different outlook than people who formed their opinions more recently.

    I think the irrational escalation bias may have played a big role for many opposed to same sex marriage. Retrospectively, it's hard to look at the issue and not see it as a personal attack on a small minority population. Through the prism of a not so distant AIDS epidemic, however, it might actually have looked more like a battle for the social good of the nation as opponents have tried, unsuccessfully, to frame it.

  11. #1061
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    You're a great guy, but it's not a smear. It's very, very similar, unfortunately.
    That pretty much the central issue, from a legal standpoint. We're never going to agree on it. Interracial marriages are between a man and a woman. Children resulting from such unions will have a mother and a father. Not so with a same-sex union. You can try to square that circle all you want but that is a true distinction.

    As to what you believe, that has changed dramatically.
    I think the definition of "you" here is problematic.

    You need to go back and read what John Taylor, Parley Pratt, Brigham Young and others said about marriage between just a man and a woman.
    OK, the polygamy card gets played. Those were still opposite-sex marriages.

    Worse, gay marriage isn't stopping you in any way, shape or form from your belief that your type of marriage is "ordained of God." So why are you so concerned about other marriages?
    This horse has been slaughtered and then beaten to a bloody pulp. You have to read this part of what I quoted too: "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." It's a clearly stated belief and quite rational, although reasonable people certainly disagree.

    Look, there are two sides to this issue and there is a wide gulf between them. Now that the constitutional issue has been decided we need to figure out how to live and let live. Endlessly arguing about an issue that's been decided seems pointless to me.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  12. #1062
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726

    Marriage Equality Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Maybe. That is a biological perspective, I guess. You could also take a historical perspective. Cultural. For some on this board, there is also a religious perspective. In Mormon doctrine, same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are a million miles apart.
    I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by LA Ute; 06-29-2015 at 06:48 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  13. #1063
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or only those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It's become a huge talking point that there is no possible legitimate, non-religious (and non-bigoted) negative impact from SSM. When I first heard that argument I rolled my eyes and assumed it wouldn't gain much real traction, so I've been shocked as it has essentially been adopted as inalienable truth. I initially thought that the debate would center on the significant "pros" for allowing SSM and how those anticipated pros measure up against the anticipated harms, but advocates of SSM managed to create common belief that there is no possible real-world downside, just embittered, mindless, hateful bigots who have no basis in their position other than homophobia.
    Last edited by Scratch; 06-29-2015 at 09:05 PM.

  14. #1064
    Divorce also deprives a child of having the constant presence of a mother and father in their lives.

    The bible also condemns divorce in the same vein as homosexuality, and in the event a divorce occurs, the woman(but not the man?) is to be stoned until dead. I wonder why the religious right doesn't pursue legislation to outlaw divorce?

    I find the selective application of the Bible, when it comes to what is now condemned as sin in the sight of God and what is not, a fascinating observation.
    “Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of the shore.”
    André Gide

  15. #1065
    It's not just about what the bible says is wrong or a sin. The bible says adultery is a sin (and most Christians still believe that), but that doesn't mean we believe adultery should be illegal. I think it's safe to say most Christians (and probably a higher percentage of mormons) believe that just because they believe something violates god's laws that it should be legislated. I can't believe that you would have a difficult time understanding that just because someone believes that one thing that is condemned by the bible should be illegal, that doesn't mean they should believe all such things should be illegal.

    There are numerous reasons why someone could believe something should be illegal. I don't think that whether someone believes something is a sin should have any bearing on whether it should be legislated.

  16. #1066
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarid in Cedar View Post
    Divorce also deprives a child of having the constant presence of a mother and father in their lives.

    The bible also condemns divorce in the same vein as homosexuality, and in the event a divorce occurs, the woman(but not the man?) is to be stoned until dead. I wonder why the religious right doesn't pursue legislation to outlaw divorce?

    I find the selective application of the Bible, when it comes to what is now condemned as sin in the sight of God and what is not, a fascinating observation.
    Is anyone claiming that divorce is good for children?

  17. #1067
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.
    Of course it's based on principle if you're referring to principle as a guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct or something similar. Most everything people do are in accordance with their own principles. Whether those actions result in charity, altruism, bigotry, and racism depends on what those principles are.

    Is the default position to allow each person to live according to his own principles? If not, what is the default position? If two group's principles are at odds, how is that resolved? How does one determine who yields their principles? is it based on some sort of empiral evidence, or does the more powerful or larger group win? Does the status quo get the nod? Or does one set of principles win because they come from a deity or an established tradition? What's the test?

    As for part two, I don't think the world is full of great philosophers. Our worldviews are largely the products of our cultural tradition and of the time we live. We have some select personal experiences that make us change from the default or put more emphasis on some parts of our cultural heritage than others, but there are few revolutionary thinkers out there.

  18. #1068
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by jrj84105 View Post
    Of course it's based on principle if you're referring to principle as a guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct or something similar. Most everything people do are in accordance with their own principles. Whether those actions result in charity, altruism, bigotry, and racism depends on what those principles are.

    Is the default position to allow each person to live according to his own principles? If not, what is the default position? If two group's principles are at odds, how is that resolved? How does one determine who yields their principles? is it based on some sort of empiral evidence, or does the more powerful or larger group win? Does the status quo get the nod? Or does one set of principles win because they come from a deity or an established tradition? What's the test?

    As for part two, I don't think the world is full of great philosophers. Our worldviews are largely the products of our cultural tradition and of the time we live. We have some select personal experiences that make us change from the default or put more emphasis on some parts of our cultural heritage than others, but there are few revolutionary thinkers out there.
    We'll have to agree to disagree. If someone believes that the only real basis for disapproval of gay marriage is irrational hatred, there's no chance for a constructive exchange of views.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  19. #1069
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  20. #1070
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    We'll have to agree to disagree. If someone believes that the only real basis for disapproval of gay marriage is irrational hatred, there's no chance for a constructive exchange of views.
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Who said that?

    Most people attribute the anti gay marriage position to religious tradition AND a perceived mandate by people in certain religious traditions to generalize those religious principles to the larger society. I think the anti-gay marriage lobby realized that the second part wasn't going to fly so came up with a bunch of alternate reasons and hoped one would stick. That made for a confusing message and uncertainty as to motivations. People filled in the gaps and some ASCRIBED the motivation to irrational hatred.

    I don't think that hatred was the motivation at all. I think it was a religious conviction coupled with a perceived religious mandate to generalize those beliefs to the larger society. The last part was the problematic part, and is just as problematic for any gay lobby attempt to force churches into performing gay marriage. The problem the anti gay marriage crowd faces is that the rationale for the position was so poorly expressed that it left room for speculation, and where uncertainty exists there is a tendency to find ill will. That puts public opinion largely against the churches.

    i still think that the best way to stop retaliation is to apologize- not for the religious conviction that gay marriage is immoral but for the attempt to generalize that conviction to those who didn't share the beliefs. It's conciliatory and at the same time would frame any attempt by gay organizations to force their agenda on churches as a similar overextension of their principles on unwilling people.

  21. #1071
    Senior Member Scorcho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    right here, right now
    Posts
    1,448
    you often hear that Sunday Play and ByuTV are 2 major obstacles that prevent BYU from major conference expansion consideration. But what about the LDS Church's stance on same sex marriage? Maybe I'm crazy but that seems like a major gap in philosophies between BYU and 95% of American college students.

  22. #1072
    Quote Originally Posted by jrj84105 View Post
    Who said that?

    Most people attribute the anti gay marriage position to religious tradition AND a perceived mandate by people in certain religious traditions to generalize those religious principles to the larger society. I think the anti-gay marriage lobby realized that the second part wasn't going to fly so came up with a bunch of alternate reasons and hoped one would stick. That made for a confusing message and uncertainty as to motivations. People filled in the gaps and some ASCRIBED the motivation to irrational hatred.
    If they believed this they weren't really listening, and this is more of an after-the-fact recitation attempting to legitimize the movement's incredibly effective recharaterization of the debate over the past few years. There were certainly people who were along for the ride due to religious belief and certainly some bigotry driving some, but it's insincere or misinformed to attribute that to anything more than a minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrj84105 View Post
    I don't think that hatred was the motivation at all. I think it was a religious conviction coupled with a perceived religious mandate to generalize those beliefs to the larger society. The last part was the problematic part, and is just as problematic for any gay lobby attempt to force churches into performing gay marriage. The problem the anti gay marriage crowd faces is that the rationale for the position was so poorly expressed that it left room for speculation, and where uncertainty exists there is a tendency to find ill will. That puts public opinion largely against the churches.
    More recharacterization masquerading as understanding. For me and for others, religious belief had nothing to do with it. I believe that the vast majority of "sins" (using my personal religious beliefs) should not be legislated. This includes many things that have been hot political issues. This is the same here; I thought long and hard about my personal political position on gay marriage long before the LDS church ever got involved. Ultimately I decided, from a policy standpoint, that while full civil rights should be extended, from a purely policy perspective the negatives of SSM outweighed the positives. Most of my acquaintances who opposed SSM reached similar conclusions; maybe I'm hanging around a more sophisticated crowd, but it was not "a religious conviction coupled with a perceived religious mandate." I am viscerally opposed to imposing my religious beliefs on the rest of society; religion is not a basis for legislation but obviously religious principles align with good legislative policy on a regular basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrj84105 View Post
    i still think that the best way to stop retaliation is to apologize- not for the religious conviction that gay marriage is immoral but for the attempt to generalize that conviction to those who didn't share the beliefs. It's conciliatory and at the same time would frame any attempt by gay organizations to force their agenda on churches as a similar overextension of their principles on unwilling people.
    Again, you're ascribing a position to many people that just didn't exist, and also implying that if people don't apologize for a position that they never held then they are just doubling down on non-existent bigotry. It's very smooth and emblematic of how well the movement has set the tone and (mis)defined public perception in a way that guaranteed the demonization of the opposition.

  23. #1073
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

    First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage,
    Dont you assume that your side is the only one acting out of moral conscience.

    I am convinced to the core with an immovable conviction that the greater morality is on the side of allowing the equal partners in a marriage to define what that marriage means to them, and through sad experience know that supporting a person's own choice in type of relationship they choose to enter will decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the long run. Far too many people attempt to force themselves to fit a particular cultural or religious paradigm by marrying the 'culturally-allowed' sex/gender of person they are told to, only to have significant problems when it all blows up years down the road (typically involving more people, especially children and a spouse no longer in his/her 'prime').


    Whereas if he or she was able to enter a relationship with a more compatible person up front, he or she would cut out a significant and bumpy section of the roller coaster.
    Third, we're going to do our level best to be charitable Christians no matter what.
    I believe Jesus would support any measure that will increase the amount of happiness, love, and committment in the world.


    NWUF objects to me saying I have gay friends, but it is still important to me. One silver lining in the SCOTUS decision is that at least the tension over the legality issue has been resolved.
    You misunderstood my statement, particularly the smilie. I know you have close gay friends. I did not object to that the slightest. Diversity of friends is one of lifes true pleasures.
    I was mocking your use of the classic and internally inconsistent qualifying statement often used by politicians in the media, "I am going to do or say something that will be offensive and harmful to <insert group here>, but I am not <a noun meaning filled with irrational scorn for said group>, because I have a lot of <insert group here> friends".

  24. #1074
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    Dont you assume that your side is the only one acting out of moral conscience.
    I know that LA understands that the other side is acting out of moral conscience. I'm the same way; I understand that it's moral conscience driving the SSM movement. Indeed, I agree that it involves a very real and very significant moral consideration. I just believe that moral conscience is trumped by the (non-religious) legitimate considerations on the other side. The problem I have (and that many others have) is the pervasive belief from the SSM crowd that only one side of the debate has a moral conscience.

  25. #1075
    Quote Originally Posted by jrj84105 View Post
    I'm guessing some people make the distinction between interracial marriage and same sex marriage based on homosexuality being perceived as a choice and race being biological, when others see both race and sexual orientation as social constructs with a strong biological basis. I think the latter is much more widely believed by younger people who have much more plastic views concerning racial identification as well sexual orientation.
    "Race" is based on external physical features that do not explain or account for a person's behavior or lifestyle.

    Same sex attraction is not external, and it clearly accounts, at least partly, for a person's behavior and/or lifestyle.

    See this old post on another thread:

    http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.ph...ll=1#post15035
    Last edited by USS Utah; 06-30-2015 at 12:45 AM.
    "It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

  26. #1076
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Two Utes, I don't have much more to say except this.

    First, for me and many, many others, this is a matter of conscience. We stood up for our belief in traditional marriage, as summarized here:

    The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. 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.
    We always made a point of standing for those ideals, not against anyone or anything. Most of us thought we'd lose the Prop 8 election -- internal polling showed a 48%-48% tie the night before the vote. Part of me wishes we had lost. It didn't matter, in the long run; we were simply standing for what we believed. Like Americans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    Worse, gay marriage isn't stopping you in any way, shape or form from your belief that your type of marriage is "ordained of God." So why are you so concerned about other marriages?
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    That pretty much the central issue, from a legal standpoint. We're never going to agree on it. Interracial marriages are between a man and a woman. Children resulting from such unions will have a mother and a father. Not so with a same-sex union. You can try to square that circle all you want but that is a true distinction.

    ...

    This horse has been slaughtered and then beaten to a bloody pulp. You have to read this part of what I quoted too: "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." It's a clearly stated belief and quite rational, although reasonable people certainly disagree.

    Look, there are two sides to this issue and there is a wide gulf between them. Now that the constitutional issue has been decided we need to figure out how to live and let live. Endlessly arguing about an issue that's been decided seems pointless to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle.
    LA, my friend, I think I understand you now, and maybe you've been saying the above all along--for what, 5+ years on CUF and here?--but for whatever reason I don't think I ever got it from your posts. Your principle is that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother..." and not necessarily the, "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan," part of what you quoted. If I'm correct, then just leave out the 'God and His eternal plan' stuff in these debates. I support SSM, but if I'm honest, I do struggle with parenting/adoption rights for gay couples (by the way, am I correctly presuming that gay married couples have adoption rights equal to hetero married couples?). I think kids are probably biologically designed to have the best chance to thrive in a family with male-female parents, with masculine and feminine nurturing. Gay marriage is all about the rights of the people who wish to marry; parenting is different though, because the rights of another individual--who, at the time of adoption, is usually not mature enough to have a real opinion on the matter--are at stake. With parenting, the rights of the child should be the foremost consideration.

    Also, why does part of you wish you'd lost on Prop 8?

  27. #1077
    GOP may regret its battle against gay marriage.

    A look at public opinion on same-sex marriage and what drives party affiliation suggests that Cruz, Walker and the other candidates on the right may be risking the party’s appeal in the general election. The Republican Party’s opposition to same-sex marriage is one of the top positions that may have kept voters from identifying with and potentially voting for the GOP.
    Polling generally suggests that same-sex marriage is not a top issue for most voters. A February CNN/ORC survey found that just 17 percent of Americans said the issue of gay marriage would be “extremely important” in choosing a candidate to support for president — the lowest of any of nine issues tested.
    But digging deeper provides a different perspective. Beyond the importance voters place upon it directly, gay marriage may have symbolic power because of the messages it sends to voters about the parties.
    "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

    "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

  28. #1078
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I don't know why it is so hard for so many to see that disapproval of same sex marriage can be based on principle. Can you at least concede that, jrj and Two Utes? It doesn't have to be the result of sociological factors. Are your core beliefs based on your upbringing and environment? Or is that true only for those who disagree with you? Give us a little credit, guys.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'll let Brother Jake do the talking for me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOAdICtXKRM

  29. #1079
    Administrator U-Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorcho View Post
    you often hear that Sunday Play and ByuTV are 2 major obstacles that prevent BYU from major conference expansion consideration. But what about the LDS Church's stance on same sex marriage? Maybe I'm crazy but that seems like a major gap in philosophies between BYU and 95% of American college students.
    Given the prevalence of southern influence in the B12, I doubt that will be an issue.

  30. #1080
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726

    Marriage Equality Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by scottie View Post
    LA, my friend, I think I understand you now, and maybe you've been saying the above all along--for what, 5+ years on CUF and here?--but for whatever reason I don't think I ever got it from your posts. Your principle is that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother..." and not necessarily the, "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan," part of what you quoted. If I'm correct, then just leave out the 'God and His eternal plan' stuff in these debates. I support SSM, but if I'm honest, I do struggle with parenting/adoption rights for gay couples (by the way, am I correctly presuming that gay married couples have adoption rights equal to hetero married couples?). I think kids are probably biologically designed to have the best chance to thrive in a family with male-female parents, with masculine and feminine nurturing. Gay marriage is all about the rights of the people who wish to marry; parenting is different though, because the rights of another individual--who, at the time of adoption, is usually not mature enough to have a real opinion on the matter--are at stake. With parenting, the rights of the child should be the foremost consideration.

    Also, why does part of you wish you'd lost on Prop 8?
    It's that part -- that "children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother" that is the core principle for me. It is an ideal, and yes, we as a society fall short of it all the time. But it's still an ideal worth supporting. Kids are not pets, and having and rearing kids is not about adult desires or fun. It's about what is best for the kids.

    That's my opinion. I'm voting for it. I also think lotteries are a ripoff for the poor and I vote against those. That's not me imposing my morals on someone, it's me voting my conscience.

    Anyway, it's pointless to debate the merits or demerits of gay marriage now. It's the law of the land. The important thing now is to move on and figure out how to live and let live. If we next see an effort to equate exercising religious tenets that oppose same-sex relationships, on the one hand, with forbidding interracial dating, on the other (see Bob Jones University), and then taking governmental action against practitioners of those beliefs (like removing tax-exempt status, a la Bob Jones), there will be a huge cultural and legal war over that effort. I hope common sense prevails so that we don't see that happen. The Utah anti-discrimination statute seems like a model in that regard.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •