Why do gays want to get married anyway? - 8: The Mormon Proposition (2010) Discussion

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

<< First: Why do gay want to get married in the first place? >>

They want to get married for the same reasons other Americans do: Because it is a certain (though not the only) way of showing someone you love them, because it helps establish a stable home for raising children, because it comes with federal benefits unmarried couples don't get, because it may be part of their religious faith (if Episcopalian, Unitarian, MCC and some Reformed Judaic temples).

They also would like to know they have the same right to marry everyone else has, even if they don't choose to exercise it, today.

<< If it's just for the legal benefits of marriage then if civil unions provide the exact same benefits as marriage would that be enough to appease the gay rights movement? >>

That's not a practical solution. As long as gay marriages are filed and even labeled as "different" from heterosexual marriages, that is "separate but equal", a philosophy identified as inherently biased and unjust during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's.

Also, as long as gay marriages are kept in a separate category, that category is vulnerable to legal attack. For instance, I think it's in Kentucky (?) now that there's a lawsuit by the Christian Right Wingers trying to dismantle the Domestic Partnership laws in that state?

<< Where in the National Constitution does it say what marriage is defined as? >>

I'm not sure the U.S. Constitution goes into detail about that. It does mention inalienable (sp?) rights...and later court decisions such as Loving v. Virginia (1963), Turner v. Safley (1987) and Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) repeatedly emphasize that marriage is a human right. Interestingly, those decisions do not go into detail about marriage partners, but focus on an individual citizen's right to free marriage....and it follows that since we're all citizens, so we should all have the freedom to marry.

<< Shouldn't this be a states rights issue to be determined by state supreme courts rather than on the national level? >>

Why? If marriage has been defined by the Supreme Court as a fundamental human right in America, why should people in some states have access to it, while others don't?

There's also NOTHING romantic about asking someone to become your "domestic partner". Our culture is built around the idea that two people fall in love and then marry. The dream of having that happen is really no different for many gays than it is for many straights.....it's what everyone was raised to see as ideal, after all. It's just the way Americans are conditioned.

<< To me mormons have the high ground on this argument- gays have never been persecuted like mormons. Also, when mormons wanted to live their weird practices (polygamy) they felt it was important enough to actually leave the country to do it. >>

Mmmm....don't quite agree. First of all, Mormons are a fairly new group, while homosexuals have been persecuted from the beginning of known history. Were Mormons burnt at the stake, like gays? No. Were they sent to the concentration camps like gays? No. (etc. etc.) BTW: I believe Mormons FLED the U.S. to Mexico...they did not choose to leave. (It doesn't really matter which group was treated "worse", anyway. It's not a Misery Competition.)

<< Where is the new nation of GayLandia? If the persecution is really so bad and it's against their human/civil/gay/whatever rights wouldn't there be gay refugees flowing north into canada? >>

Some have.

reply

[–] Hollywoodwhore99 14 years ago

Everytime I see your church going LDS member I always think theuy look like HITLER YOUTH.

What LDS will not admit is for years they did not want African AMericans in the LDS. You viewed them as savages.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

<< Everytime I see your church going LDS member I always think theuy look like HITLER YOUTH. What LDS will not admit is for years they did not want African AMericans in the LDS. You viewed them as savages. >>

Okay, whore (and I say that with love!) (and a little personal identification, as a Hollywood person/whore myself!)...I think we really need to be polite to the religious people who post here in a respectful and enlightened manner. Using the term "you" makes it sound like you're attacking, and it isn't productive.

There are Mormons (and people of all religious faith) who aren't fanatical and intollerant. Sometimes they were just born into a religion, and it is a family tradition. Sometimes they've added their own interpretations to the churchs' doctrines, and sometimes they are able to separate how they are expected to behave within their faith from other people's lives.

The rational religious people are wonderful, wonderful allies to have. If anyone creates a bridge between the secular community and certain religious communities, it will be them. So let's have a little courtesy, Missy!

: )

reply

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Raglan22 wrote: "To me mormons have the high ground on this argument- gays have never been persecuted like mormons. Also, when mormons wanted to live their weird practices (polygamy) they felt it was important enough to actually leave the country to do it."

As an active Mormon and lifelong member of the LDS church I'd like to respond to this part of Raglan's post and give a big "amen" to cookiela2001's responses.

I don't believe that we (Mormons) have any high ground on this argument because we've been persecuted. In fact, I believe we're being hypocritical and I believe that Joseph Smith would disagree with our opposition to gay marriage. Don't agree? Read the first few verses of D&C 134 and the 11th Article of Faith.

The fact that our ancestors suffered for our beliefs should make us more firm in our convictions that all men and women in this country should be afforded "the free exercise of conscience" (D&C 134:2) even though our forefathers may have been denied that.

Not all LDS who wished to practice polygamy left the country. Many served time in prison because they were unwilling to give up their beliefs and the freedom of religion that they believed the US Constitution afforded them. It dishonors their memory for us to seek to deny gay marriage and "bind the consciences of men" (D&C 134:4).

I believe that they moral high ground would come in following Joseph Smith's admonition to not "suppress the freedom of the soul" and to allow others the freedom of worshiping according to the dictates of their own conscience (A of F 11).

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

stefanheikel,

The persecution that I was referring to (and I assumed Raglan was, as well) was the persecution of early Mormons when they were driven by mobs from Ohio and Illinois because of their beliefs. As well as the persecution put on them by those who did not like their early practice of polygamy.

And, in case it wasn't clear, I believe the LDS church position against gay marriage is wrong and hypocritical. That was the point I was trying to make and used our own doctrine to support.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

jeffwcos: Thanks for your post, and joining the discussion!

One of my good friends is an LDS member as well, and he says that in the early days, "sealings" were occassionally performed between males, not just married couples. I don't know the original reasons for this or when it was halted, or when it got glossed over in LDS history....I'll ask him if he got that from a book, or from original documents he saw in the Utah mines.

reply

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

I have also heard that about sealings between males in the early days of the church. I'd love to find more evidence and explanation of that.

It's not all that surprising because there is evidence that men of African descent were also allowed to hold the priesthood in the early days of the church but that it changed under Brigham Young.

reply

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 14 years ago

I'll give you a perfect example of WHY a legal and federally recognized same sex marriage is so important.

My partner and I have been in a committed long term same sex relationship for over 16 years (and knew each other and dated for almost a year before that)! Ten years ago we bought a home but only under my name. We decided not to put it into both names since we just did not want to deal with any sort of homophobia (I live in one of the most homophobic states in the US) since in this state we could be denied a home based on our sexual orientation and there would be no recourse for us. We always planned to refinance after a while and put both names on the house and land. Due to an unfortunate accident we both ended up disabled. Together our income covers that basics but if one of us were to die, we would have no way to afford the home we have lived. If we were legally married and it were recognized we would both be eligible for surviving spouse benefits. It would allow either survivor to continue living in the home (exactly as it does for heterosexual couples).

Without that entitlement (which can not be achieve through any other legal method) either survivor would lose the house. So at the hardest time in our lives (during the death of a loved partner) we would also be heading for homelessness! Not a pretty picture trust me! Also, if I die first, my partner would have a hell of time getting the house. Even with wills and other legal documents in place NOTHING replaces a legal marriage certificate! It would instantly grant him the co-ownership of the home (just as it would with a married heterosexual couple)!

This is not about if "we" can procreate!

This is not about "Traditions"!

This is not about "religious DOGMA"!

This is about basic fairness and equal treatment as is guaranteed to every US citizen under the constitution of the United States of America, nothing more and nothing less!

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

amberissmiling,

So D&C 134 and the 11th Article of Faith don't matter anymore? At what point do we decide to remove them from our canon because the current prophet is telling us to do otherwise?

That's a serious question, not rhetorical. It's the question that I keep wrestling with.

Forty years ago I could have said that people of African descent didn't deserve to be married in the temple and church policy at the time would have supported me in that statement.

Today the thought of it is absolutely appalling to us.

Forty years from today, will we look back and be appalled that we repeated our own history by denying marriage and temple blessings to homosexuals?

That one is rhetorical. But, I'd still love to hear your answer to the first question.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

There are doctrinal reasons why the Old Testament and Law of Moses are no longer followed namely the coming of the Messiah.

You can't really find a reason why we would ignore the Doctrine and Covenants or the 11th Article of Faith.

And, as one of our prophets said:

“If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” - Joseph Fielding Smith. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 3:203–204 ISBN 0884940411)

So what do I do? How do I reconcile D&C 134 and the 11th A of F with the position the church is currently taking with respect to marriage equality?

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Amber,

Do you think I haven't prayed?

I have. At length. Many times.

Is it possible for you to answer a question?

How do I reconcile these things? D&C 134, A of F 11, Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith's quote I provided you with. Elder Oaks admonition. And the church's actions against marriage equality.

They've also said to be respectful of those with differing opinions on this issue. So is it impossible to be a member of this Church and believe that homosexual citizens in our country deserve full equality? (By the way, I'm not aware that the 1st Presidency has come out and said that there is NO constitutional right to marriage equality. Maybe you have a quote you'd like to share.)

Alright, Amber, I've posed four questions in this post. The first two were admittedly rhetorical. The last two are actual questions that I would love to hear your answers to as part of this discussion.

reply

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 13 years ago

i'm actually not against gay marriage (agency and all that). but if it came down to it, i would (and will) always follow the prophet. i don't need to make my way easier with people by agreeing with them on issues so long as i do that. i'm not going to spend my time actively defending something that the prophet has spoken out against.

You sound more and more like Catholics and the Pope. I have never liked that set up why should I like the "prophet" any better?

Time maybe to "think" on your own and not trust others who might (just might) have delusional thinking???

Just a thought!

"Today's religion is tomorrow's superstition!!!"

reply

[–] jeffwcos 13 years ago

Too many Mormons (I'm one of them and have talked to quite a few) somehow cannot separate the prophet speaking on our beliefs about marriage from the constitutionality of marriage equality.

They aren't willing to understand our constitution and, most surprising, they won't even study Joseph Smith's teachings on the constitution that seem to have been wholly disregarded at this point.

I completely recognize and honor an LDS person's right to believe that only man-woman marriage is ordained of God. What I don't recognize nor honor is an LDS person's right to:

1) ignore our own church history,
2) ignore our confused/changing doctrine with respect to homosexuality,
3) ignore the fact that we still have NOT had a prophetic revelation on the subject, and
4) ignore the U.S. Constitution we which frequently claim was a God-inspired document.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 13 years ago

Good points. Thank you.

I'm also kind of puzzled when some individuals feel they must show they're "not supporting" something by actively trying to dismantle it.

If there's a movie out there I don't want to support, I can choose not to go see it. It doesn't mean I have to jump in with both feet and whip up a revolution to try to get it banned.

reply

[–] jeffwcos 13 years ago

Ah... well you just are not really getting into the Mormon mindset these days.

Take the HBO TV show: Big Love (which began about 4-5 years ago and is now in its final season).

The subject matter was a polygamist family. The setting was Utah. That was all they needed know... LDS Corp went about telling everyone not to tune into the show before the first episode even aired.

Turns out that the show made it shockingly clear that the current LDS Church and Mormons, in general, strongly disapproved and prohibited polygamy.

Then again, it also portrayed Mormons as being somewhat judgmental simpletons. But, hey, we kinda demonstrated that by protesting a show that hadn't even aired yet. Oops.

reply

[–] AmericanGayAtheist 14 years ago

First-point-five: If it's just for the legal benefits of marriage then if civil unions provide the exact same benefits as marriage would that be enough to appease the gay rights movement? It would certainly take away the fear that churches would be forced to marry gays.

in places which have had "civil unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" there have been corporations and agencies that refuse to accept it as the same as a Marriage causing lots of legal problems who, it is not exactly the same legally!

Churches have never been forced to Marry anyone, ever. That is a red herring throw in just to get the Evangelicals up in arms since they are a large voting block (As we witness with prop 8 in California).

"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!"

reply

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"Why do gays want to get married anyway?"

But shouldn't the goal of a free society be to allow everything and anything unless a reasonable case can be made against something? A reasonable case here would consist of some form of verifiable infringement against another citizen who is not a part of any particular same-sex marriage. So far, nobody has been able to provide a reasonable case of infringement on anybody else in society. That should be the sole burden, if personal freedom is the core of the discussion.

If two gays want to get a fishing license together but they want a "gay fishing license," who gives a crap? Give them what they want, it doesn't affect the other people licensed to fish. This is a non-issue drummed up into an issue by scared and angry control freaks who want a say in others' affairs, cut and dry. And this sort of behavior on their part is not going to be limited to marriages, just do some digging and you will find more b.s. they want a say in regarding others' affairs. The idea of simply minding your own business just doesn't register.

reply

[–] Raglan22 14 years ago

First off Cookie that was a very good response

They want to get married for the same reasons other Americans do: Because it is a certain (though not the only) way of showing someone you love them, because it helps establish a stable home for raising children, because it comes with federal benefits unmarried couples don't get, because it may be part of their religious faith (if Episcopalian, Unitarian, MCC and some Reformed Judaic temples).

If it's a religious reason then that kind of invalidates the claim that they wouldn't try to force whatever church to marry them - I don't know of many churches that would accept gay marriage or even any gay behavior at all.

That's not a practical solution. As long as gay marriages are filed and even labeled as "different" from heterosexual marriages, that is "separate but equal", a philosophy identified as inherently biased and unjust during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's.

hence the currently strict definition of marriage - the slippery slope folks say that once you open the door to redefining marriage to anything then you will have to allow everything - my marriage to my pet gerbil would be equal to your marriage to a human (and while i personally find that hilarious and in no way demeaning to someone elses marriage apparently quite a few people do

I'm not sure the U.S. Constitution goes into detail about that. It does mention inalienable (sp?) rights...and later court decisions such as Loving v. Virginia (1963), Turner v. Safley (1987) and Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) repeatedly emphasize that marriage is a human right. Interestingly, those decisions do not go into detail about marriage partners, but focus on an individual citizen's right to free marriage....and it follows that since we're all citizens, so we should all have the freedom to marry.

And here is where i personally disagree with the courts then - I don't think marriage is a right i think it's a privilege. But since i'm not on the supreme court then i suppose i'll have to concede that one (without doing any research on the cases you listed on account of my general apathy and laziness)

Why? If marriage has been defined by the Supreme Court as a fundamental human right in America, why should people in some states have access to it, while others don't?

There's also NOTHING romantic about asking someone to become your "domestic partner". Our culture is built around the idea that two people fall in love and then marry. The dream of having that happen is really no different for many gays than it is for many straights.....it's what everyone was raised to see as ideal, after all. It's just the way Americans are conditioned.

Uh-oh! Americans are conditioned? where? public school? perhaps this is the basis for one of the most legitimate arguments of the anti-GM movement. If Gay marriage is legalized and gay lifestyles in general are taught to public school students as a normal and legitimate lifestyle when the majority of America believes that it is in fact a mental illness or just plain degenerate or wrong can you see how people would be extremely concerned?

Mmmm....don't quite agree. First of all, Mormons are a fairly new group, while homosexuals have been persecuted from the beginning of known history. Were Mormons burnt at the stake, like gays? No. Were they sent to the concentration camps like gays? No. (etc. etc.) BTW: I believe Mormons FLED the U.S. to Mexico...they did not choose to leave. (It doesn't really matter which group was treated "worse", anyway. It's not a Misery Competition.)

They fled (which is choosing to leave) the united states to the utah area (not part of the US at the time) Also, it was legal to kill them in at least one state - but you're right it's not a misery competition

<< Where is the new nation of GayLandia? If the persecution is really so bad and it's against their human/civil/gay/whatever rights wouldn't there be gay refugees flowing north into canada? >>

Some have.

And if it was as important as all that then all would, and what a colorful country Gaylandia would be

...and it saddens me.

reply

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Raglan,

I know your response was to Cookie but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents...

You wrote: "I don't know of many churches that would accept gay marriage or even any gay behavior at all."

Cookie listed four of them for you. I'm confident there are others.

Regarding the slippery slope argument: Remember that marriage is a legal contract. We have firm precedent in this country of only allowing consenting adults to enter into contracts. Your gerbil is not a consenting adult and never will be considered such. As for marrying children, a minors signature on a contract is not even considered legally valid.

You wrote: "Americans are conditioned? where? public school?"

No, they are conditioned in their homes! It's what we are taught in church, right? We are supposed to teach our children about the importance of marriage and family. We teach them that before they are even old enough to know that they are gay.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, almost ALL gay children come from heterosexual parents so it's only natural for them to see heterosexual relationships and marriages and want the same for themselves. That's where the conditioning comes from.

As for "GayLandia"... You might want to take a look at a map - all the countries are currently taken. But, even if they created a new man-made island and moved there, all the heterosexuals in the rest of the world would give birth to a new generation of homosexuals and, like the current generation, they likely wouldn't want to leave the country of their birth nor all their loved ones.

It always strikes me as sad when the answer to someone being different is: well, maybe you should just leave.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ChristmasStan 14 years ago

why do straight people want to stop us.

reply

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

It doesn't matter why gays want to get married.
It doesn't matter why gays are gay.

All that matters is equal rights.

If America really believes in equal rights, then gays have those right, too. This includes the right to marry their partner if they want.

reply

[–] Raglan22 14 years ago

Well why not just do like the mormon fundamentalist polygamists do and "purport" to be married? that along with civil unions covers both the romantic and legal sides and doesn't offend anybody

...and it saddens me.

reply

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"doesn't offend anybody"

Yeah, that's what really matters, isn't it? Before the discussion was about marriage, they used to say the same thing about sexual orientation. Some people still do. "Why don't you just be gay privately but purport to be heterosexual so you don't offend others?" I think you know perfectly well, no matter what, certain people are going to be offended. So why would anybody with any amount of self-respect base their choices and rights around the feelings of such people? Ultimately there is no reasonable basis for offense because same-sex marriage has no quantifiable negative effect on anybody else. It's like being offended by the color orange.

reply

[–] Raglan22 14 years ago

being married or not isn't going to affect the gayness of a person - somebody is not more gay after marriage so the idea that people don't want gays to get married because they don't want gays to be more gay(?) is pretty dumb
When i said didn't offend anybody i mean why not come up with a solution that makes both sides as happy as they possibly can be - For the normals -keep marriage hetero, for the gays - give them the benefits and let them "say" they're married without it actually being a legal marriage.

...and it saddens me.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BoogieKnight 14 years ago

"being married or not isn't going to affect the gayness of a person - somebody is not more gay after marriage so the idea that people don't want gays to get married because they don't want gays to be more gay(?) is pretty dumb"

You missed my point entirely.

"When i said didn't offend anybody i mean why not come up with a solution that makes both sides as happy as they possibly can be"

As other people are telling you, there is no other way under the law, based on the nature of the law and how it translates through society. Long ago, it was decided that there would be no other equivalent to a "marriage" under the law. That's why everyone has arrived at this point. And as I alluded to in my last post, just because certain people may be merely offended, that does not give anybody the right to legislate against that which is offensive. If you want to do that, it's just fascist. The burden should be whether or not any harm comes as a result of allowing something under the law, and whether anybody is harmed by not having the right to do something. If we were discussing any other issue on these same terms, would you have this much difficulty understanding it?

reply

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

You make excellent points.

I would add that most people aren't really threatened or offended by gay marriage.

Fox News and the GOP has just got them whipped up in a frenzy for political reasons.

After legalization, people are going to have a hard time remembering why they cared about this in the first place.

But, of course, the conservatives will have them hating and fearing some other group.

reply

[–] hadmatter 14 years ago

Civil unions don't even come close to the legal coverage of marriage, and they never will.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

reply

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

>> Well why not just do like the mormon fundamentalist polygamists do and "purport" to be married? that along with civil unions covers both the romantic and legal sides and doesn't offend anybody

As I've heard it, the problem with less-than-marriage is that the partner gets restricted in hospitals, excluded from wills, isn't recognized as a guardian of the children, etc.

But, for me, it's a matter of American values. Gays are Americans who deserve equal rights.

reply

[–] ChristmasStan 14 years ago

The question is why do mormons care? Its really not your decision .

reply

[–] kiradl 14 years ago

My wife and I got married because we wanted to make a legal lifelong commitment to one another. We also wanted to have legal rights and benefits for one another--the kind that only come with marriage.

Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are inherently inferior to marriage. They do not, no matter how well-intentioned or how carefully worded/crafted, provide the same rights and benefits as marriage. Furthermore they always emphasize the second-class status of anybody who has one. Only marriage provides the rights, protections and status of marriage.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

And the Mormons do not have the high ground in this. They may have been persecuted to some extent, though they brought much of that on themselves with their incessant attempts to force their religion on others, meddling in the lives of others, heavy-handed meddling in politics, their barbarism (Mountain Meadows Massacre)and other abhorrent behaviors. But you'd think that having been persecuted they'd know better than to turn and persecute others. Sadly the oppressed often become the oppressors.

BTW, there are plenty of gay people who've moved elsewhere so they could ensure their rights, be it to another state (like MA) or another nation. But this nation is as much ours as it is anybody else's, so why should we be forced to flee because of the bigotry of others? After all, we don't choose to be gay. Religious people do choose to be religious, and they choose to be bigots. If anybody should have rights it should be us.

reply

[–] Screen-7 14 years ago

>> kiradl 3 days ago (Tue Sep 21 2010 07:29:19)
>> And the Mormons do not have the high ground in this. They may have been persecuted to some extent, though they brought much of that on themselves

Considering the mormon's history of persecution -- especially for their alternative views of family -- you'd think they would sympathize with gay people who want to also have alternative families.

But, alas, they are conservative and that often trumps compassion.

reply

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

That is definitely the biggest irony in all this.

A century ago, Mormons were upset that we weren't permitted to marry the way that our religion dictated at the time.

Today we've reversed the situation and decided to restrict the way that others can marry.

reply

[–] am_buglet_82 14 years ago

I have a stupid question, Jeffwcos.
I'm not Mormon (though I have Mormon friends), so this is why I'm confused about this.

Amber kept talking about a prophet...as in the president of your Temple?

This is the first time I've ever heard of a church official (President?) being called a prophet.

Could you please explain this?

(told you it was a stupid question :P)

-Amanda

"She will remember your heart when men are fairy tales in storybooks written by rabbits"

reply

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

I don't think it's a stupid question. It's one of those Mormon things that we've been raised with and seems perfectly normal to us but is not something many others are familiar with.

You've heard me, in the course of this discussion, refer to the 11th Article of Faith. Well, there are thirteen "Articles of Faith" that were penned by Joseph Smith and published in a newspaper back in his day to explain what Mormons believe. The have since been "canonized" as part of our scripture.

Moving along... the 6th one reads: "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth."

In the Old Testament there were prophets: Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. In the New Testament, Christ called apostles (Peter, Paul, John, etc).

Today we believe that God still calls a prophet and apostles. Our prophet is also the president of our church. There were twelve apostles as in Christ's day.

The prophet is the man who receives direction (revelation) from God in how to lead the church. We also believe, however, that each of us is entitled to communicate with God, through prayer, and receive answers or revelation for our own lives.

You asked if the prophet was the "president of our temple". Just so you know, there are roughly 150 temples around the world and each one has a husband and wife team who are called to direct the affairs of that temple. Their titles are President & Matron of the temple. (I know that was a tangent but just wanted to clear it up.)

So... some people, like Amber, consider me apostate because they believe that my views on marriage equality are contradictory to that of the prophet. But there are times when the prophet speaks as a man and there are times when he speaks as a prophet of God. We've been taught that each of must pray to God and seek our own witness that what the prophet is teaching is true.

I do that. I listen. I pray. And then I listen for answers from God. Both my "heart" (spirit) and my intellect (also a gift from God) tell me that I should side with marriage equality. That belief is as strong as my belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, since I love so much of what the LDS/Mormon church teaches and I truly love the spirit that I feel there, I continue to associate myself with it. I'll continue to offend some members of the church with my views. But, the prophet has called on us to be respectful of differing views. So, I'll keep trying.

I'm sorry if that was a much longer answer than you wanted. I guess I kinda took the opportunity presented by your question to expound on my "apostate" Mormon position and why I believe the way I do.

Thanks for asking. :)

reply

[–] am_buglet_82 14 years ago

Wow, thanks for answering me so thoroughly!

I was going to post a longer message, but I think I'll do that in a pm...but not tonight. I will tomorrow :).

-Amanda

"She will remember your heart when men are fairy tales in storybooks written by rabbits"

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

Isn't it nice when people of differing beliefs and opinions can discuss and embrace their differences openly in a civilized manner and learn from each other?

reply

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 13 years ago

Gay people want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do. The idea that "marriage isn't any big deal so why do gays want to get married" is belied by the fact that no one wants to take marriage rights away from heterosexuals. No one who says "why do gays want to get married anyway" ever argues that we should do away with straight marriage.

As for civil unions there's a number of problems with them. First off there's a basic question of equality before the law. If a civil union is to be an acceptable compromise to the opponents of gay marriage then it will clearly need to be an inferior institution to marriage. If the civil union provides all the benefits of marriage then what's the difference? People with civil unions are going to refer to their partners as spouses and husbands or wives. They're going to refer to the union as a marriage. So if there's literally no structural difference then why not CALL it a marriage? Many states recognized this problem and outlawed not just gay marriage but any institution designed to mimic a marriage.

As for a states rights issue this is one of those things which is not easily regulated on a state by state basis. First off this is a basic issue of civil rights and equality before the law. Your rights cannot be dependent on crossing state boundaries and the things which vary from state to state tend to be more minor things like the precise requirements for fishing or drivers licenses. Not fundamental rights like marriage. And there's the issue of portability. A marriage is portable. So what happens when two guys married in Massachusetts move to, say, Texas? Does their marriage cease to exist? That's ludicrous. If we say that the marriage is null and void then it violates the basic human rights of homosexuals. But if we say that states must give full faith and credit to gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions then that makes a mockery of the right of states to legislate against gay marriage. If Texas outlaws gay marriage but will recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts then what's to stop gay Texans from flocking to Massachusetts, getting married and then returning to Texas? This is the same problem faced wrt slavery in the 19th century where the South wanted a slave to remain a slave even if he escaped to the North but the insistence that slavery transcended state boundaries made a mockery of the ability of the North to legislate against slavery within their own borders As Abraham Lincoln presciently noted, this situation was untenable and the status of slavery would need to be nationalized. Either slavery would become legal everywhere or it would become illegal everywhere as it eventually did.

As for Mormon persecution this is simply ludicrous. The social persecution and violence experienced by Mormons in the mid west and the legal repercussions they faced for their recalcitrant polygamy are nothing compared to what homosexuals suffered and still suffer. Of course all of this is moot since right in not decided by which social group has historically been more victimized.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

[–] stw789987 11 years ago

The question "Why do gays want to get married anyway?" is worth asking but it's decades too late. (my own post is a couple years too late too ;-) As late as the early 90s gay activism discussions tended to dismiss marriage as an outmoded institution, much as the original post suggested. At the time I understood the logic for such dismissal (marriage as an institution does have its own problems), but I also thought the dismissal was sort of a way of dealing with the feeling back then that marriage for gays and lesbians would never come about in the US. Sort of: since it could never happen it may be better to not want to too much and to fight for other, more possible things.

So it's worth mentioning somewhere in this discussion (and in the forum for this documentary) that the progress toward marriage equality and gay marriage has been remarkably fast. Those of you in your 20s may not be able to sense this, but for everyone who was already an adult by 2000, the speed of progress toward gay marriage is breath-taking. Breath-taking in a good way for many who support it, including me, but breath-taking in a scary what-the-hell-is-happening way for many others. Change is scary.

I admire this thread in particular for the measured and thoughtful responses from people on various sides of the debate. Thanks.
The mentions of persecution of the mormons is interesting in that it seemed to come from non-mormons who were looking for ways to empathize with mormons for their difficult position. So I thank Jeff and others for not using past persecution mormons suffered as an excuse for that church's current efforts to restrict the rights to marriage. However, two responders have dismissed the persecution of mormons as their own fault, as brought on by their own bad actions. This is historically ignorant but that's not the problem--there's little reason why average Americans or others should know much about mormon history. But they should think about how much their logic sounds like the logic of blaming jews and gays in the past. I'm not comparing persecution against mormons to that against gays (nor jews) since persecution against mormons was historically isolated and much shorter in span. So, go ahead and fight the mormon position against gay marriage; be angry at the mormon church for fighting the california law. But in your anger and your fight, resist the impulse to blame the mormons for their own historical persecution, like Kiradl and There-is-no-sayid do in this thread. That's a bigoted logic that leads to more persecution. Much better to formulate a historically savvy understanding, as many do here, of how even persecuted groups can become persecutors and be against persecution and bigotry in all its forms. I believe your fight against injustice will be more effective if you keep if free from hate and bigotry. Anger and fight are not the same as hate and persecution.

reply