The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[UtahDan]

The irony is that this kid has identified the winning pony. The Daily Universe should be riding it all the way home. "Thus sayeth the Lord" doesn't need legal arguments to prop it up or tear it down.

I've said this before, but I'm surprised this reason for opposing gay marriage isn't cited more often by LDS believers.

In another 20 years we will debating whether the reason the church was in favor of this is a holy mystery or whether it is because of these ideas that were articulated at that time. Lebowski will still be yelling at people to stop blaming God and will call for an apology.

[RobinFinderson]

The irony is that this kid has identified the winning pony. The Daily Universe should be riding it all the way home. "Thus sayeth the Lord" doesn't need legal arguments to prop it up or tear it down.

I've said this before, but I'm surprised this reason for opposing gay marriage isn't cited more often by LDS believers.

The subversive bit of the letter, what sneaked below the orthodoxy radar of the DU editorial board, is that it places complete responsibility for the fallout of this on the leadership of the church. For a church that presumably wants to be popular, this has been a disaster, even exposing some serious fault lines among members themselves. The kid is right. There were no good reasons to discriminate against gay people. The only two reasons left are, "Because we CAN," and "Thus sayeth the Lord." Did the church ever provide a list of best arguments to use in favor of Prop 8? Or did they leave the formulation of actual arguments against to the individual members, so they could distance themselves from the ideas as they were systematically shown to be deceptive and/or ill-founded?

[Jeff Lebowski]

In another 20 years we will debating whether the reason the church was in favor of this is a holy mystery or whether it is because of these ideas that were articulated at that time. Lebowski will still be yelling at people to stop blaming God and will call for an apology.

[LA Ute]

The irony is that this kid has identified the winning pony. The Daily Universe should be riding it all the way home. "Thus sayeth the Lord" doesn't need legal arguments to prop it up or tear it down.

I've said this before, but I'm surprised this reason for opposing gay marriage isn't cited more often by LDS believers.

At the risk of sounding simplistic (and I am sure YOhio will not hesitate to observe that I am, anyway), the reason we don't just go out and say "vote for Prop 8 because it's God's will" is the same reason we don't say we're opposed to stealing because it is against the 10 commandments or that we oppose prostitution because God forbids that as well. Yes, if you love the Daily Universe writer's point, you will respond, "Well, stealing and prostitution are different because there are societal consequences from those activities." (Libertarians will fight you hard on whether prostitution should be outlawed.)

Well ... now aren't we back to the same argument: that same-sex marriage produces undesirable consequences? The difference is that a great many people who support same-sex marriage (and probably the majority of those who post here) are absolutely convinced that there simply are no negative societal consequences from such marriages, so no rational argument can be made against it. I think that argument is deeply ironic because it is so, well, irrational. Many otherwise thoughtful people here have said that opponents of same-sex marriage are "delusional," or bigoted, or simply behind the times.

The honest-to-goodness bottom line here is that this is an issue on which reasonable, thoughtful people disagree in good faith and for good reason. I am continually amazed at the lack of appreciation for that point here, and the certainty with which the opposite point is of view is pressed.

OK, I'm done. Fire away, everyone.

[UtahDan]

OK, I'm done. Fire away, everyone.

Don't let all of us get you down LA. Also, consider this:

[Jarid in Cedar]

At the risk of sounding simplistic (and I am sure YOhio will not hesitate to observe that I am, anyway), the reason we don't just go out and say "vote for Prop 8 because it's God's will" is the same reason we don't say we're opposed to stealing because it is against the 10 commandments or that we oppose prostitution because God forbids that as well. Yes, if you love the Daily Universe writer's point, you will respond, "Well, stealing and prostitution are different because there are societal consequences from those activities." (Libertarians will fight you hard on whether prostitution should be outlawed.)

Well ... now aren't we back to the same argument: that same-sex marriage produces undesirable consequences? The difference is that a great many people who support same-sex marriage (and probably the majority of those who post here) are absolutely convinced that there simply are no negative societal consequences from such marriages, so no rational argument can be made against it. I think that argument is deeply ironic because it is so, well, irrational. Many otherwise thoughtful people here have said that opponents of same-sex marriage are "delusional," or bigoted, or simply behind the times.

The honest-to-goodness bottom line here is that this is an issue on which reasonable, thoughtful people disagree in good faith and for good reason. I am continually amazed at the lack of appreciation for that point here, and the certainty with which the opposite point is of view is pressed.

OK, I'm done. Fire away, everyone.

What you consider the negative societal consequences?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

[New Mexican Disaster]

The honest-to-goodness bottom line here is that this is an issue on which reasonable, thoughtful people disagree in good faith and for good reason. .

Yes on the first (good faith), no on the second (good reason).

[pellegrino]

At the risk of sounding simplistic (and I am sure YOhio will not hesitate to observe that I am, anyway), the reason we don't just go out and say "vote for Prop 8 because it's God's will" is the same reason we don't say we're opposed to stealing because it is against the 10 commandments or that we oppose prostitution because God forbids that as well. Yes, if you love the Daily Universe writer's point, you will respond, "Well, stealing and prostitution are different because there are societal consequences from those activities." (Libertarians will fight you hard on whether prostitution should be outlawed.)

Well ... now aren't we back to the same argument: that same-sex marriage produces undesirable consequences? The difference is that a great many people who support same-sex marriage (and probably the majority of those who post here) are absolutely convinced that there simply are no negative societal consequences from such marriages, so no rational argument can be made against it. I think that argument is deeply ironic because it is so, well, irrational. Many otherwise thoughtful people here have said that opponents of same-sex marriage are "delusional," or bigoted, or simply behind the times.

The honest-to-goodness bottom line here is that this is an issue on which reasonable, thoughtful people disagree in good faith and for good reason. I am continually amazed at the lack of appreciation for that point here, and the certainty with which the opposite point is of view is pressed.

OK, I'm done. Fire away, everyone.

I don't think it's that simple. I think it's more like, "We have yet to see how it can have negative consequences, especially given that under current law homosexuals can adopt, receive spousal benefits, and even inherit capital from their partners."

[LA Ute]

What you consider the negative societal consequences?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

I hate to cop out, but it's just too late to get into that, and doing so will only start a prolonged debate that will (in my experience on this board) end up with no increased understanding. (I am not talking about you, one of the sweetest-natured guys I've ever seen.)

I'll just say this. I am prepared to recognize opposing points of view as arguably sound, but as unacceptable to me because of my own personal beliefs. Others in this debate are unwilling to extend me the same courtesy. For example, I think our society should emphasize this ideal: Every child should have a chance to grow up with a father and a mother. Now, Some will rip that idea as simply groundless at best, foolish at worst. I don't really care to have a discussion with such people because we will get nowhere.

Yes on the first (good faith), no on the second (good reason).

You are making my argument for me.

[UtahDan]

I don't think it's that simple. I think it's more like, "We have yet to see how it can have negative consequences, especially given that under current law homosexuals can adopt, receive spousal benefits, and even inherit capital from their partners."

This is sort of where I am, particularly since other countries have allowed it for a while. If there are societal bads, there ought to be evidence in abundance that one can readily point to. I recognize that there are arguments about what may happen but I don't think I have seen any arguments based on evidence that hold up. Maybe I have missed something.

I do respect someone telling me that that believe it to be God's will. I don't personally believe that to be so, but someone exercising faith in a prophet or in what they believe they have learned spiritually is honorable ground to stand on, from my point of view. Returning to the main point, I think the problem that has been highlighted here is that once many people accepted that it was bad because of whatever faith based reason, they deduced that all sort of things about why it is bad must necessarily then be true. This is the same thinking that says if there really is a Zarahemla then certainly there is going to be evidence followed by striking out into the jungles of central America to look. IOW, if the conclusion is right then all evidence will support it.

This is why deductive reasoning is problematic in a faith based context, IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I hate to cop out, but it's just too late to get into that, and doing so will only start a prolonged debate that will (in my experience on this board) end up with no increased understanding. (I am not talking about you, one of the sweetest-natured guys I've ever seen.)

I'll just say this. I am prepared to recognize opposing points of view as arguably sound, but as unacceptable to me because of my own personal beliefs. Others in this debate are unwilling to extend me the same courtesy. For example, I think our society should emphasize this ideal: Every child should have a chance to grow up with a father and a mother. Now, Some will rip that idea as simply groundless at best, foolish at worst. I don't really care to have a discussion with such people because we will get nowhere.

LA Ute, I am sad to hear you talk like this. I, for one, always enjoy your posts and I feel like any* of our discussions benefit from having you involved. I greatly respect your opinions and I hope you will keep sharing them. You do make a difference here.

(*OK, maybe excepting the sports discussions where you trash my cougars)

[RobinFinderson]

LA Ute, I am sad to hear you talk like this. I, for one, always enjoy your posts and I feel like any* of our discussions benefit from having you involved. I greatly respect your opinions and I hope you will keep sharing them. You do make a difference here.

(*OK, maybe excepting the sports discussions where you trash my cougars)

Oh brother! (basic truth of the post notwithstanding)

[LA Ute]

LA Ute, I am sad to hear you talk like this. I, for one, always enjoy your posts and I feel like any* of our discussions benefit from having you involved. I greatly respect your opinions and I hope you will keep sharing them. You do make a difference here.

(*OK, maybe excepting the sports discussions where you trash my cougars)

I did not mean to sound like I was complaining. I am just pretty tired of trying to have a conversation about this particular issue. There's too much talking past each other. I hope I am not too much at fault for that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh brother! (basic truth of the post notwithstanding)

Given your response, I am quite sure you missed the basic truth of the post.

[RobinFinderson]

Given your response, I am quite sure you missed the basic truth of the post.

It's the style, man, not the message. It was as if I saw a big sloppy PDA, with a little tongue, and I couldn't help but bust out an 'Oh Brother!' I'll just scoot along...