The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[wuapinmon]

You've consummated your marriage haven't you? I expected a kindler gentler Tim post honeymoon...

Not the wise thing to say here, bishop.

[pellegrino]

You might've heard about it on the news:

Is it morbid to think that image is beautiful, or at least awe inspiring?

[Tim]

You've consummated your marriage haven't you? I expected a kindler gentler Tim post honeymoon...

Yes, but right now I'm in Japan and she's in NC. *grumble grumble*

[Tim]

Oh, come now. If you ever disagree with me, I hope you won't tell me, "Get your crap together and then you can start joining discussions with the adults."

You know what, LA, you've shown over time to be a reasonable and valuable member of the community, so when I disagree with you I at least know I'm disagreeing with someone that I respect. Red Sox has flung more poo than Cr33|<$+3r'$ avatar since day one on this board, and as a result he's never done anything to warrant or invite my respect. That's why it's hard to be nice to someone like him.

[Art Vandelay]

Not the wise thing to say here, bishop.

Yes, but right now I'm in Japan and she's in NC. *grumble grumble*

I wouldn't go so far as to call it inspiration, but you have to admit it was pretty darn perceptive of me.

[Tim]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it inspiration, but you have to admit it was pretty darn perceptive of me.

It really has less to do with that and more to do with the fact that Red Sox is a fish out of water.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know what, LA, you've shown over time to be a reasonable and valuable member of the community, so when I disagree with you I at least know I'm disagreeing with someone that I respect. Red Sox has flung more poo than Cr33|<$+3r'$ avatar since day one on this board, and as a result he's never done anything to warrant or invite my respect. That's why it's hard to be nice to someone like him.

Come on, Tim.

[LA Ute]

You know what, LA, you've shown over time to be a reasonable and valuable member of the community, so when I disagree with you I at least know I'm disagreeing with someone that I respect. Red Sox has flung more poo than Cr33|<$+3r'$ avatar since day one on this board, and as a result he's never done anything to warrant or invite my respect. That's why it's hard to be nice to someone like him.

I haven't followed Red Sox's posts but reflexively admire him because he uses the name Red Sox. How much can really be wrong with such a person?

[UtahDan]

I actually think the letter hits the mark. I do understand that there are those who believe that there are logically defensible reasons for opposing gay marriage. I think for the most part even most of them will admit those are not arguments that led them to the belief but rather arguments they have adopted to defend what they have been told is the will of God. I don't disrespect that at all. Choosing to believe that someone has the red telephone to God on this issue, so to speak, is fine. But I do think the author is right to ask people to confront the fact that this is the real reason for what they believe. In my opinion (just for me) it is the only logically defensible reason.

Do those of you who tow the party line on this feel any reluctance to admit this? I assume there is a desire for it to be logical in addition to being inspired. I think we LDS have refined sharing anecdotal nonsense with each other (if it supports something we already believe) to an art form. But of course very little in religion is appeals on the logical level the way it does on the spiritual level.

[LA Ute]

I actually think the letter hits the mark. I do understand that there are those who believe that there are logically defensible reasons for opposing gay marriage. I think for the most part even most of them will admit those are not arguments that led them to the belief but rather arguments they have adopted to defend what they have been told is the will of God. I don't disrespect that at all. Choosing to believe that someone has the red telephone to God on this issue, so to speak, is fine. But I do think the author is right to ask people to confront the fact that this is the real reason for what they believe. In my opinion (just for me) it is the only logically defensible reason.

Do those of you who tow the party line on this feel any reluctance to admit this? I assume there is a desire for it to be logical in addition to being inspired. I think we LDS have refined sharing anecdotal nonsense with each other (if it supports something we already believe) to an art form. But of course very little in religion is appeals on the logical level the way it does on the spiritual level.

I won't quarrel with you if you are limiting your view to yourself. That said, anyone who says their view of a hotly-debated issue on which people of intelligence and good will disagree is "the only logically defensible" one has a closed mind, IMO.

I think that even without the request from the FP, the overwhelming majority of Mormons in CA would have voted for Prop 8 because of the Church's beliefs about marriage. This is not all that remarkable, because most religious people who believe in God and who attend church their church, mosque or synagogue once a month voted the same way. What the FP letter did was mobilize LDS people to get out and work for the measure.

[RobinFinderson]

Really? i thought it was a cop-out argument: some dude in salt lake says it's right so since we believe he talks to god, it must be right

no offfense to TJM...perhaps he does talk to god...just that the letter was generally pathetic, in my view

The way I see it, there are no GOOD reasons for the government to discriminate against gay people. So starting from the premise that all justifications for discriminating against gay people are bad, I split the bad reasons into two categories: Bad reasons with and without integrity.

A bad reason that lacks integrity is one that is outright wrong, and that can be shown on its face to be wrong to anyone with an ounce of reason. Arguments like, "Church's will be required by law to perform gay marriages" are just obviously untrue, and either demonstrate a profound ignorance about the working of law, or they are disingenuous scare mongering tactics. Almost all of the arguments advanced in support of Prop 8 fell into this category.

The letter's author, in contrast, makes a bad argument that HAS integrity. The position that 'we believe in a prophet of God who receives divine revelation to tell us how to live our lives,' well that might be the argument of a religious automaton, but at least it has integrity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I actually think the letter hits the mark. I do understand that there are those who believe that there are logically defensible reasons for opposing gay marriage. I think for the most part even most of them will admit those are not arguments that led them to the belief but rather arguments they have adopted to defend what they have been told is the will of God. I don't disrespect that at all. Choosing to believe that someone has the red telephone to God on this issue, so to speak, is fine. But I do think the author is right to ask people to confront the fact that this is the real reason for what they believe. In my opinion (just for me) it is the only logically defensible reason.

Do those of you who tow the party line on this feel any reluctance to admit this? I assume there is a desire for it to be logical in addition to being inspired. I think we LDS have refined sharing anecdotal nonsense with each other (if it supports something we already believe) to an art form. But of course very little in religion is appeals on the logical level the way it does on the spiritual level.

The problem was, very shortly after the church came out in support of prop 8, they published this statement:

http://lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/comme...on-of-marriage

that provided a detailed and specific set of reasons for supporting prop 8. The arguments didn't seem particularly compelling and some of the points were flat-out wrong (see Mass. Catholic adoption services anecdote). I would have been more comfortable had they simply said "God says so".

[Tim]

I won't quarrel with you if you are limiting your view to yourself. That said, anyone who says their view of a hotly-debated issue on which people of intelligence and good will disagree is "the only logically defensible" one has a closed mind, IMO.

I think that even without the request from the FP, the overwhelming majority of Mormons in CA would have voted for Prop 8 because of the Church's beliefs about marriage. This is not all that remarkable, because most religious people who believe in God and who attend church their church, mosque or synagogue once a month voted the same way. What the FP letter did was mobilize LDS people to get out and work for the measure.

It wasn't the FP that got people to "mobilize," though, it was additional instructions provided by leaders at a lower level than the FP. The FP said nothing about standing on street corners, canvassing neighborhoods, setting up morality police patrols inside the wards to identify those who hadn't donated to the cause, nor taking all of one's savings and sinking it into the campaign (like my sister-in-law's parents did). Local leaders took general words from the FP and layered on much stricter instructions and adminitions.

[cougjunkie]

I don't know...when there's a $9mm church building on every other block in Utah County, I'd say it may be the governing principle surrounding LDS facilities.

We just had a brand new church built in our neighborhood and I saw the figures, you are about 7 million high.

[UtahDan]

I won't quarrel with you if you are limiting your view to yourself. That said, anyone who says their view of a hotly-debated issue on which people of intelligence and good will disagree is "the only logically defensible" one has a closed mind, IMO.

I think that even without the request from the FP, the overwhelming majority of Mormons in CA would have voted for Prop 8 because of the Church's beliefs about marriage. This is not all that remarkable, because most religious people who believe in God and who attend church their church, mosque or synagogue once a month voted the same way. What the FP letter did was mobilize LDS people to get out and work for the measure.

I don't doubt that they would have and I'm not saying my view is the only view. What I am highlighting is that if you had asked most members, or religious people, cold 5 years ago why they opposed it I think the first response you would get would be because God opposes it. That might still be true. If you asked members why they are against heroine use I think you would get answers grounded in experience first and foremost. Maybe I'm wrong about that.