Prop 8: A Fork in the Road For Modern Latter Day Saints II

[_Droopy]

Looking over a number of both recent and past threads at the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board, a pattern emerges in which we may see that a number of LDS who have moved to the Left, or come to the Church from the Left in other areas, appear to continue moving in this philosophical direction upon ever more fundamental aspects of Church teaching, including those relating to core concepts of morality and the impact of what we might call the morality structure of a people upon the larger culture. It strikes me as odd that anyone who considers him or herself a "faithful" or "practicing" LDS who claim to be "faithful" followers of Christ and his restored gospel, would be on the opposite side of a debate regarding the complete redefinition of the concepts of marriage, family and gender, so fundamental are these to an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and the nature of our potential and destiny as eternal beings as identified in modern revelation and articulated by modern prophets and special witnesses of Christ.

Not far behind this (of course) are deep confusion regarding the nature of a free, constitutional republic, the original intent and purpose of the Constitution, the meaning of the concept of "rights", and the moral structure of "freedom".

For most "faithful" Latter Day Saints (given the full connotations of that term in a Church context), one would think it enough that both the scriptures and the living oracles of the Lord have spoken, from time immemorial, in a unified voice against homosexuality (and all forms of sexual deviation from the laws of God regarding human sexuality), and warned that a people who accept and support "abominations" of this kind, when that acceptance and support reach a critical mass of the population are "ripening" in iniquity, and are setting themselves up for the disintegration of their society. The Book of Mormon warns us repeatedly in clear language to be cognizant of various “secret combinations” in the last days and to be mindful of their power and influence, lest they begin to dominate society. This would include, as a matter of course, ideological or political forces seeking the overthrow of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian foundation of civil society, as well as its economic basis.

This is all moot, apparently, for some, for whom trendy notions of "oppression" and “social justice” (a code-like term that carries a great deal of baggage unrelated to the euphemistic “rights” talk so common to this and other related subjects) are the definitive shove under the bus for the gospel when it presses too hard against the great and spacious building’s garden gates.

So I’d just like to offer my perspective and some clarifying observations on the issue, yet again, for consideration in the hope that, at least those sitting on the fence of this issue will be moved to move in a positive direction – toward the Ensign of the church, and away from the “political correctness” of the great and spacious house of mirrors.

Among the core arguments made by LDS supportive of homosexual marriage, which are not at all at varience with similar arguments made in the secular world, are:

1. There is a “right” to homosexual marriage in the constitution (assuming also an implied right to marry qua marriage for heterosexuals) that is being denied by opponents of homosexual marriage.

2. A continued and stubborn conflation of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s with the homosexual marriage movement (a movement that only dates from roughly the middle of the 90s as a public concern).

3. Anecdotal claims, perhaps definitive for anyone unfamiliar with the longstanding social science knowledge regarding the Gay subculture, or who has lived in areas, as I have, with a visible and concentrated homosexual subculture, that most homosexuals are in “loving relationships” that precisely parallel heterosexual married relationships and which in x number of cases, are more committed and monogamous than heterosexual ones.

4. A continuing implication, if not outright accusation, that anyone opposing homosexual marriage could not be doing so as a matter of deep, thoroughly considered principle, but only out of ignorance and hatred rooted in unenlightened and unsophisticated bigotry.

Let’s make a few brief points about the above.

A. From both a gospel and a generalized western Judeo-Christian perspective, “homosexual marriage” is an exercise in oxymoronity that it would be difficult to outdo (“social justice” is a strong runner up) even given our present culture’s continuing paroxysms of linguistic self flagellation we know as “political correctness”. But, as LDS, we may as well go all the way and stick rigorously to the restored gospel in its fullness, which is, after all, the basis upon which all derivative concepts are based.

Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other in any intelligible sense because the term “marriage” both denotes and connotes only one thing: a union of a man and a woman (the rarely commanded or allowed practice of plural marriage aside for the moment, as in the history of the gospel, from Adam to the present day, it appears to have been a rather rare and isolated phenomena among the Lord’s people, and has been, as in the case of the Nephites, to an overwhelming degree, prohibited) for the purpose of their exhalation in the Celestial Kingdom, the bringing of the Father’s children into mortality, and an eternal posterity in the eternal worlds.

Homosexuality, aside from its being an “abomination” comparable in all respects to premarital and extramarital sexual immorality in seriousness, frustrates and subverts each and every one of these purposes, both mortal and eternal.

Homosexual marriage is, then, a self negating concept, even if it can quite easily be subjected to a breaking on the rack of political correctness, such that the meaning of its terms take on different colorations once enough semantic ligaments have been torn and joints pulled out of place.

B. Skin color and other similar characteristics are a matter of DNA, and completely outside the control of the one who inherits them. Homosexual behavior, “Gay” identity, and the dynamics of the “Gay” subculture are choices, values and, in the case of the various Gay personae, mannerisms, modes of speech and dress, and roles played in homosexual relationships and culture, cultivated and practiced self identities. There is nothing about such forms of culture or personal definition to which the constitution speaks or to which majorities within a culture must pay obeisance.

By any stretch, homosexuals already have, and have long had, the very same inalienable rights that I enjoy. Their sexual orientation provides no compelling argument for any others, and marriage, by definition, being neither a right nor a concept logically and conceptually congruent with homosexuality, is not in any case a conceptual category within which the concept “homosexuality” can make any sense.

3. Anecdotal claims aside, homosexual relationships have long been known to involve severely disproportionate rates of social pathology such as drug and alcohol use and suicide, and feature startlingly aggressive rates and forms of promiscuity and sexual predation (what one could only call, especially in urban areas a hyperpromiscuity).

The popular attraction within much of the male homosexual subculture for young boys, including boys well underage (the culture of the “chicken hawks”), is well known.

4. Following long established precedent in other areas of Korihorism (and its attendant Kultursmog), the assumption is made that no principled opposition to homosexuality exists. All that exists is philistine ignorance and bigotry. In such an environment, all one really has to do to win a debate is call a name.

[_honorentheos]

(Droopy,

I have reposted my reply in this section as it seemed most appropriate. I look forward to the discussion.)

Droopy,

Your arguments hinge on two points -

A: homosexuality is a choice rather than a part of a person's nature

and

B: support of same-sex marriage is a leftist (i.e. - anti-democratic by your inference) agenda that is just one more step towards the destruction of the United States. Or, atleast, it's fall as a "great" nation.

I'm going to step over point A for the moment and address point B. You said, at the end of your post -

4. Following long established precedent in other areas of Korihorism (and its attendant Kultursmog), the assumption is made that no principled opposition to homosexuality exists. All that exists is philistine ignorance and bigotry. In such an environment, all one really has to do to win a debate is call a name.

First off, I think we can both agree that fertility is not a requirement of marriage. A person does not have to submit to a fertility test in order to obtain a marriage license. And a person who is known to be infertile is not prohibited from marrying even with this knowledge. (One of my niece's had to have her ovaries removed at the beginning of puberty and told the obvious -she will not be the mother of her naturally born children - for example.)

And at this point, your arguments against same-sex "relations" do two things. They make sex within marriage a ritual through which one has to act out the procreative act in a specific way in order to be officially married under your definition. Is this the common understanding that one has of marriage in our society? Or is this a redefinition of it's own? I would say the later since I don't think many would support it, even those who oppose SSM.

The second thing your argument does is basically say, "If you are not like us, then you are wrong."

At this point you are arguing in effect for a theocratic form of government rather than democratic rules of law. You are arguing for law based on your personal religious beliefs rather than ones based on rights and the democratic extension of rights you, personally, enjoy to others who are different than you.

I'm curious how you view the results of Reynolds vs. United States where the Supreme Court ruled on the limits of the exercise of religious belief as it affect law in the US?

For your consideration (and to match your long post) The exact wording of the Reynolds Ruling on religion vs the law of the land -

"Upon this charge and refusal to charge, the question is raised whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law which has been properly enacted if he entertains a religious belief that the law is wrong.

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word "religion" is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining

Page 98 U. S. 163

heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State, having under consideration "a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion," postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested "to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly."

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session, the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, "for establishing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined, and, after a recital

"that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,"

it is declared

"that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."

In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute, the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of this convention, Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff.Works 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations.

Page 98 U. S. 164

1 Jeff. Works 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three -- New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia -- included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress, the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." (my emphasis on this paragraph)

In short, your religion has full freedom to influence your beliefs and opinions to the fullest extent possible. However, it's ability to influence your actions only extends to the point where it does not violate the law of the land.

I think any reasoning person would see this as necessary for maintaining order.

Think about this - if it weren't the case, a hypothetical terrorist could make a claim that they were killing infidels out of religious belief and direction from their ecclesiastic leader. In order to maintain a just law that gives equal protection to all religions, drawing the line at the law of the land is not only sound, but necessary to maintain order and ultimately to have a state government at all. Removing this understanding of the limits of religious freedom would place ecclesiatical leaders over government. Or force a ruling on the truth claims of a religion, establishing laws that apply to religions only (which would be a violation of the Bill of Rights), or otherwise eroding the boundaries between church and state.

You could not have the United States of America as it was intended, exists, and was framed by our founders and not have this understanding. This is as well-reasoned a protection of religious freedom as one could imagine in our world.

And no where does it justify the creation of law based purely on one group's religious beliefs.

If we can agree on that, perhaps we can move to point A next. We'll see.

[_Droopy]

Your arguments hinge on two points -

A: homosexuality is a choice rather than a part of a person's nature

This requires more intellectual precision. I have not claimed that homosexuality is not part of a person's "nature". For some 28 years, alcohol was a part of my nature in the sense that iron filings become part of a magnet, attached to it by a powerful attractive force. That alcoholism, or addictive syndrome, was an accretion, however, not an intrinsic aspect of my being. In that sense, I do not believe homosexuality is "natural", natural here defined as something inherent, causally set, and irreducibly fused to an individual being, such that its properties simply emerge, instinct-like, at some specific developmental stage

B: support of same-sex marriage is a leftist (i.e. - anti-democratic by your inference) agenda that is just one more step towards the destruction of the United States. Or, atleast, it's fall as a "great" nation.

The sexual revolution itself, of which the "Gay liberation" movement (now evolved into a homosexual marriage movement) was a subset, was indeed a manifestation of a movement of the cultural left to dissolve Judeo-Christian sexual ethics and mores.

First off, I think we can both agree that fertility is not a requirement of marriage. A person does not have to submit to a fertility test in order to obtain a marriage license. And a person who is known to be infertile is not prohibited from marrying even with this knowledge. (One of my niece's had to have her ovaries removed at the beginning of puberty and told the obvious -she will not be the mother of her naturally born children - for example.)

No, fertility is not a requirement for marriage to be understood as marriage.

And at this point, your arguments against same-sex "relations" do two things. They make sex within marriage a ritual through which one has to act out the procreative act in a specific way in order to be officially married under your definition.

Where have I defined marriage in this way? So far, all I've done is to define homosexuality as non-intrinsic.

Is this the common understanding that one has of marriage in our society? Or is this a redefinition of it's own? I would say the later since I don't think many would support it, even those who oppose SSM.

While I do think it is a fundamental definition, it is not primary in the sense of a requirement for marriage to be understood as legitimate marriage. Couple's who cannot have children, or are passed child bearing age marry all the time, and always have.

The second thing your argument does is basically say, "If you are not like us, then you are wrong."

If you will think carefully about by arguments here, you will see that what I am saying is that the practice of homosexuality, and the "Gay" lifestyle are wrong. The practice of premarital sex is wrong. The practice of adultery is wrong. The question is the standard, and whether the standard is true, not whether someone is or is not like me. Were we speaking merely of others not being like me (or "us"), we would never need get around to discussion the gospel, as the standard would be nothing beyond subjective cultural prejudice.

Principled opposition to homosexual marriage, however, is grounded in a very deep metaphysical and moral sea.

At this point you are arguing in effect for a theocratic form of government rather than democratic rules of law. You are arguing for law based on your personal religious beliefs rather than ones based on rights and the democratic extension of rights you, personally, enjoy to others who are different than you.

1. Then perhaps you could show in what manner or where I have explicitly or implicitly supported a theocracy?

2. "Rights", in the sense of the American founding, are not based on a "democratic extension of rights". A democratic system of rights would be unbearably tyrannical and capricious, and hence, the Founders grounded our unalienable rights in their extension from the Creator to human beings as an inherent endowment preexisting the state and independent of the state.

The fundamental purpose of government, as I have always argued, is to preserve, protect, and guarantee those preexistant, unalienable rights. The state cannot "democratically extend" rights because the state has no rights to extend, in this sense. Nor would democracy be in any way the ideal means of extending them, were they to be something the state could "give" to individuals within a body politic.

I'm curious how you view the results of Reynolds vs. United States where the Supreme Court ruled on the limits of the exercise of religious belief as it affect law in the US?

I'll take a look at it for another post, even though I don't ordinarily like arguing case law.

In short, your religion has full freedom to influence your beliefs and opinions to the fullest extent possible. However, it's ability to influence your actions only extends to the point where it does not violate the law of the land.

Agreed, with provisos.

I think any reasoning person would see this as necessary for maintaining order.

Think about this - if it weren't the case, a hypothetical terrorist could make a claim that they were killing infidels out of religious belief and direction from their ecclesiastic leader. In order to maintain a just law that gives equal protection to all religions, drawing the line at the law of the land is not only sound, but necessary to maintain order and ultimately to have a state government at all. Removing this understanding of the limits of religious freedom would place ecclesiatical leaders over government. Or force a ruling on the truth claims of a religion, establishing laws that apply to religions only (which would be a violation of the Bill of Rights), or otherwise eroding the boundaries between church and state.

You could not have the United States of America as it was intended, exists, and was framed by our founders and not have this understanding. This is as well-reasoned a protection of religious freedom as one could imagine in our world.

And no where does it justify the creation of law based purely on one group's religious beliefs.

If we can agree on that, perhaps we can move to point A next. We'll see.

The problem here is that you are in supporting religious freedom in one breath, and taking it away in another. As you pointed out yourself, but I will make even more explicit, the motives, philosophical underpinnings, and fundamental ideas that bring citizens into the public square are immaterial. Whether one opposes homosexual marriage for religious, philosophical, psychological or purely emotional reasons is beside the point. The public square is open to all who wish to persuade others to adopt their views and pass laws representing them.

Whether, in other words, I think homosexuality is a sin or whether I am a Freudian who thinks it is a psychopathology, doesn't matter. You have singled out the anti-homosexual marriage position as suspect because of core religious motives, while exempting the ideological and personal motives of pro-homosexual supporters because they are secular, as if, in a free society, motive determines the legitimacy of one's participation in the political life of one's society, rather than the persuasive power of one's ideas subjected to deliberative democratic processes.

You have, in other words, moved away from a free, open society where all ideas may compete in the arena of ideas, to a status based society in which whether one is religious taints one's participation in the public square by definition.

This allows the pro-homosexual marriage side to win all arguments and legislative battles by default, of course - so long as they are public battles.

[_honorentheos]

Droopy,

In order to carry on a coherent conversation, I am going to continue to table the questions regarding the morality, ethics, and "nature/nurture" issue. Since we are directly talking about Prop 8 and same-sex marriage as it is supported/opposed politically in the US, we need to find points of consensus on the legal background before we can discuss the more subjective questions of ethics/morality.

That said, let's go back to this point:

First off, I think we can both agree that fertility is not a requirement of marriage. A person does not have to submit to a fertility test in order to obtain a marriage license. And a person who is known to be infertile is not prohibited from marrying even with this knowledge. (One of my niece's had to have her ovaries removed at the beginning of puberty and told the obvious -she will not be the mother of her naturally born children - for example.)

No, fertility is not a requirement for marriage to be understood as marriage.

And at this point, your arguments against same-sex "relations" do two things. They make sex within marriage a ritual through which one has to act out the procreative act in a specific way in order to be officially married under your definition.

Where have I defined marriage in this way? So far, all I've done is to define homosexuality as non-intrinsic.

Ok. If procreation (fertility) is not required, then what role do sexual relations play in a marriage?

[_moksha]

American conservatism tries to wrap itself in the cloak of God, but you must ask yourself who such conservatives are continually lobbying for: The answer is the rich and powerful who wish nothing, including religion and social progress, to upset their apple cart and their quest to attain and hoard as much money as possible.

Ask yourself one other question, is this really the message of God? If you do not agree then why would you ever want your church, which embodies spiritual claims of God, to ensnare itself in such politics. To do so would muddy your religion just to attain goals that God would not embrace. For Christians, the realization that greed is antithetical to what Jesus preached should make us wary of those politics based upon this principle.

What religion should be about is all of us loving God and each other in the best way we can.

[_honorentheos]

Hi Droopy.

Just to simplify, my entire post above can be skimmed over and we can move forward if you wouldn't mind answering this question -

If procreation (fertility) is not required, then what role do sexual relations play in a marriage?

[_SoHo]

Someone should start a church that holds as one of its tenets that people of the same gender must marry and have sexual relationships in order to inherit the highest kingdom in heaven. Two same-gendered members of that church should attempt to get a wedding license in a jurisdiction that currently prohibits it. When denied, they should sue and use the arguments advanced by the LDS church in Reynolds v. U.S. in their defense.

[_Darth J]

Dear Droopy:

Some time ago, I asked you to find us all a statute from any jurisdiction within the United States where having children and/or raising children is part of the legal definition of marriage. Or where stereotypical gender roles are an element of the legal definition of marriage.

How is that search coming?

And did you ever come up with an explanation as to why in Utah you can marry your first cousin if you are incapable of having children?

Utah Code s. 30-1-1

(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.

Do you have some insight you could share as to what societal benefit is advanced by allowing a male and female first cousin who cannot reproduce to enter a legally-sanctioned relationship?

[_Darth J]

Among the core arguments made by LDS supportive of homosexual marriage, which are not at all at varience with similar arguments made in the secular world, are:

1. There is a “right” to homosexual marriage in the constitution (assuming also an implied right to marry qua marriage for heterosexuals) that is being denied by opponents of homosexual marriage.

................

Let’s make a few brief points about the above.

You never made any brief points as to your claim that the only rights protected by the Constitution are those found within the text of it. Could you follow through with this constitutional exegesis a little more?

Also, as a fan of the Tenth Amendment, will you please explain how the Bill of Rights applies to the States?

[_Darth J]

1. There is a “right” to homosexual marriage in the constitution (assuming also an implied right to marry qua marriage for heterosexuals) that is being denied by opponents of homosexual marriage.

Droopy, can you find a basis in the text of the United States Constitution as to why the government cannot pass a law forbidding people to have children?

How about a right to actually raise the children you do have, as opposed to, say, the government taking your children away to raise them in government institutions? Can you find that right for me in the Constitution?

What about the government passing a law that says that the defendant has the burden of proving himself or herself innocent if accused of a crime? Are you able to find anything prohibiting that in the Constitution anywhere?

Or let's just make it simpler. Can you find me somewhere in the Constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual citizen the right to vote?