The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[creekster]

These are good thoughts that I would like to tease out a little more. I used to think exactly this but have decided that I don't any more. The problem for me is that I think the idea that people are born with all sorts of impulses that are immoral that need to be controlled and a homosexual impulse is just one of them works best as an abstraction. Let me give some examples of what I mean.

I can think of lots of impulses that people can have that are immoral. Some people are tempted to steal, or to light things on fire, or to have sex with children or animals, or to act out on their angry feelings. No one would say that simply because a person has innate desires such as these that it is unjust to deny them the ability indulge them.

On the other hand, society, religion and the scriptures have all put things in the sinful category that it doesn't have there any more. Slaves were slaves and the impulse to be free was sinful for them. God had put them there. Certainly people of certain races should not hope or expect equality and even the modern church gave ample support to that idea. The impulse for equality for women, the desire to vote, to work, not to be the legal property of their husbands, to be in government. All sinful at some point in history not too far distant.

So which category is homosexuality more like? I can't say that I think it is a clean analogy to either but if forced I would say the second. This is a long way of saying, can you think of anything in my first category that you would say is a good analogy to homosexuality? I don't have any trouble telling a man that he cannot set things on fire, molest children or beat his wife. It is hard for me to tell him that he cannot be married, have a family of his own, and enjoy those things as the sweetest fruits of life. Not when they are readily available to him. This is where the analogy you are making for me doesn't work, but perhaps you have some other examples in mind.

Maybe it is just too far out there to think that this one could change, but if it really is in that second category maybe it could.

I wasn't arguing abotu why things were categorized as immoral; my premise assumes you beleive in God/the LDS church. Simply becaseu you dont liek to be opposed to homosexual behavior doesnt answer the quesiton of whether it is somehow unlike the actions that you have no problem opposing. Your examples only address the issue of whether the church, or anyone, ought to opoose it on moral grounds. My point was that having agreed it is immoral, that obedience to the principle causes pain is not a reason alone to change the policy.

At least I think that was my point. It has been a while. If orgot about your teasing effort here.

[UtahDan]

I wasn't arguing abotu why things were categorized as immoral; my premise assumes you beleive in God/the LDS church. Simply becaseu you dont liek to be opposed to homosexual behavior doesnt answer the quesiton of whether it is somehow unlike the actions that you have no problem opposing. Your examples only address the issue of whether the church, or anyone, ought to opoose it on moral grounds. My point was that having agreed it is immoral, that obedience to the principle causes pain is not a reason alone to change the policy.

At least I think that was my point. It has been a while. If orgot about your teasing effort here.

My purpose in trying to think about which category, if either, it fits into is that one category contains things that stopped being immoral once we better understood the issue and the other category contains things that are still immoral and likely to remain so. In other words, women and blacks were once thought to be qualitatively different than men. Just as gays are seen as qualitatively different than straights. Could that change as we come to better understand homosexuality. That is what I am thinking through. The church is not at all immune to fundamentally altering its views so I am just wondering whether it could here. I admit that seems very unlikely today, but 50 years from now?

[UtahDan]

I found this to be very moving, and very hopeful.

[YOUTUBE]ax96cghOnY4[/YOUTUBE]

[woot]

I found this to be very moving, and very hopeful.

[YOUTUBE]ax96cghOnY4[/YOUTUBE]

Moving indeed. Very well done.

[UtahDan]

Moving indeed. Very well done.

When you juxtapose this with what President Packer said, I at least feel a little bit of sympathy for the brethren. What are they really going to say? I think the most they can do is encourage people to be tolerant, but what is the message of hope for a young gay person? Let's compare:

Burns: Things will get better. You will grow up and find people who accept you. You will find love. You will have a family. I have been where you are and I am telling you all these good things can happen. Plus, society is going to change, so stick around to see it happen.

The Church: If you are obedient to God's commandments and live a chaste life, devoted to God but devoid of intimacy, marriage, children, God will make everything right in the next life.

What message would any of us pick? Little wonder very few gays stay in the church, but my over all point is that the church just can't offer the message Burns offers. I assume there are few comments because people are not taking the time to watch this, but they should. This is what a compassionate, hopeful message to gays looks like. Like I say, I'm not saying the church should give this message, I don't see how it can. But it is worth people getting an idea of what they are asking others to give up.

[woot]

When you juxtapose this with what President Packer said, I at least feel a little bit of sympathy for the brethren. What are they really going to say? I think the most they can do is encourage people to be tolerant, but what is the message of hope for a young gay person? Let's compare:

Burns: Things will get better. You will grow up and find people who accept you. You will find love. You will have a family. I have been where you are and I am telling you all these good things can happen. Plus, society is going to change, so stick around to see it happen.

The Church: If you are obedient to God's commandments and live a chaste life, devoted to God but devoid of intimacy, marriage, children, God will make everything right in the next life.

What message would any of us pick? Little wonder very few gays stay in the church, but my over all point is that the church just can't offer the message Burns offers. I assume there are few comments because people are not taking the time to watch this, but they should. This is what a compassionate, hopeful message to gays looks like. Like I say, I'm not saying the church should give this message, I don't see how it can. But it is worth people getting an idea of what they are asking others to give up.

Good points. I guess what makes BKP's talk seem especially depraved is the juxtaposition of his talk with that of MKJ's just a short time before. From the accounts, it seemed that he was extremely empathetic and compassionate, while nevertheless toeing the party line as much as required. He seemed almost regretful that there wasn't a better compromise between the "truth" and the reality of these individuals. I actually believed that he was sorry and felt terrible for the plight of the people in attendance. BKP, on the other hand, seemed to relish putting the sinners in their place, at least in comparison. there just wasn't any love in that talk.

I suppose we've hashed this out enough at this point, but I think the tone is extremely important, even if the end result is the same. BKP's talk will do nothing to quell the tide of hatred. MKJ's talk seems like it would have for anyone in attendance that wasn't already sympathetic.

[Flystripper]

I found this to be very moving, and very hopeful.

[YOUTUBE]ax96cghOnY4[/YOUTUBE]

I don't know how anyone can watch that and not be moved.

[CardiacCoug]

When you juxtapose this with what President Packer said, I at least feel a little bit of sympathy for the brethren. What are they really going to say? I think the most they can do is encourage people to be tolerant, but what is the message of hope for a young gay person? Let's compare:

Burns: Things will get better. You will grow up and find people who accept you. You will find love. You will have a family. I have been where you are and I am telling you all these good things can happen. Plus, society is going to change, so stick around to see it happen.

The Church: If you are obedient to God's commandments and live a chaste life, devoted to God but devoid of intimacy, marriage, children, God will make everything right in the next life.

What message would any of us pick? Little wonder very few gays stay in the church, but my over all point is that the church just can't offer the message Burns offers. I assume there are few comments because people are not taking the time to watch this, but they should. This is what a compassionate, hopeful message to gays looks like. Like I say, I'm not saying the church should give this message, I don't see how it can. But it is worth people getting an idea of what they are asking others to give up.

Yeah, that was a great video.

Gay people should absolutely leave the Church and make a real life for themselves.

Where I disagree somewhat is that I don't understand why the Church has to exclude openly gay, monogamous people. Legalizing gay marriage would actually allow the Church to treat gay people equally to straight people. The Church wouldn't have to perform gay marriages in Temples to at least let married, monogamous, gay people stay in the Church. The Church could just treat them like any other person who was just married civilly and not married in the Temple.

[pellegrino]

Yeah, that was a great video.

Gay people should absolutely leave the Church and make a real life for themselves.

What I disagree somewhat is that I don't understand why the Church can't exclude openly gay, monogamous people. Legalizing gay marriage would actually allow the Church to treat gay people equally to straight people. The Church wouldn't have to perform gay marriages in Temples to at least let married, monogamous, gay people stay in the Church. The Church could just treat them like any other person who was just married civilly and not married in the Temple.

as simple as that may sound, it just doesn't jive with the Mormon view of the cosmos. Unlike most Christian religions, marriage (temple or civil) for Mormons isn't just about keeping people from sinning by providing a sanctioned outlet for their carnal desires, it's a fundamental building block for the entire universe. Man was created because God has eternal increase through celestial marriage. Marriage is part and parcel of the whole concept of theosis that is so unique to Mormonism and it is the pinnacle of the temple experience. So as obvious a solution as that may be, allowing civilly married, monogamous homosexuals to have full fellowship in the church just won't play well for the leadership or the body of the church.

Plus, how ironic would it be that two married homosexuals could sit together in an endowment session and go through the veil one right after the other, but then they'll never be able to be sealed together. If that doesn't open the door for a major schism somewhat along the lines of what Sooner predicted, then I don't know what will.

[RobinFinderson]

Where I disagree somewhat is that I don't understand why the Church has to exclude openly gay, monogamous people. Legalizing gay marriage would actually allow the Church to treat gay people equally to straight people. The Church wouldn't have to perform gay marriages in Temples to at least let married, monogamous, gay people stay in the Church. The Church could just treat them like any other person who was just married civilly and not married in the Temple.

This is EXACTLY what I was trying to convey in a different post. The church should be able to say, "We don't believe that gay marriage is part of the eternal picture, but there is no reason for it not to be part of the temporal picture, so gay couples, please come join our communities, and we will all let a kind and just God sort this out when His time comes."

as simple as that may sound, it just doesn't jive with the Mormon view of the cosmos. Unlike most Christian religions, marriage (temple or civil) for Mormons isn't just about keeping people from sinning by providing a sanctioned outlet for their carnal desires, it's a fundamental building block for the entire universe. ... So as obvious a solution as that may be, allowing civilly married, monogamous homosexuals to have full fellowship in the church just won't play well for the leadership or the body of the church.

Like I said in a different post, I don't think the church will eventually have a choice. Eventually the church's position on this matter will look as wrong as churches teaching segregation. At that point it will only appeal to full-blown bigots. Personally, I don't think the church will let it come to that.