The Church's Changing Position on the Legalization Same-Sex Marriage

[Jacob]

Yes, I believe that being married is good for parents. And I think that having married parents is good for kids. Marriage is a good thing for strengthening bonds all around -- I'm surprised that LDS people who think marriage is so essential for straight couples suddenly think that marriage is bad and in fact immoral for gay couples. Explain that to me, please.

I think that a state-recognized marriage is a good way to promote procreation, treat families fairly or even as a favored group (compared to unmarried individuals), and to create an orderly process for the dissolution of such state sponsored marriages.

To the extent that it provides social pressure towards parents staying together, I think it is also a positive for children of married parents. But I'm not sure it provides much such pressure. Almost all the legal pressure has been eliminated.

But I don't see how a state-sponsored marriage is "good for strengthening bonds all around" as you claim." The certificate itself and the related laws do no such strengthening. As I mentioned, the social mores or pressure tend to encourage (some) parents to stay together, and that is a good thing. But I'm not sure what that has to do with a marriage certificate in 2012.

And who is arguing that marriage is "bad for gay couples?" Marriage is a good institution, that's why many are hesitant to dramatically change it. Whether it is good or bad for any given couple is largely dependent upon the individuals involved.

[Tex]

In my mind not only allowing but encouraging gay people to get married and stay married would definitely be one of those measures that would strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Wow. If you really believe that, then you really have no clue where people on my side of this issue are coming from.

Maybe, maybe not. I think this is where it might have to go.

It can't, and here's why: it's not really about marriage. What the gay community wants is normalization. They want society to accept their desires and behavior as every bit as normal as heterosexuals, and in a democracy, winning state-sanctioned marriage recognition is the creme de la creme.

Some derivative church dishing out rogue marriage licenses isn't going to cut it. It's why many in the gay community reject civil unions as a compromise.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Wow, I am flattered with your proposal. You mind if I think it over for a couple of day? I will get back to you on Monday.

PS: Do you grind your teeth at night? That might be a deal-killer.

I am not a teeth grinder. I'll be waiting.

[Zubaz]

It can't, and here's why: it's not really about marriage. What the gay community wants is normalization. They want society to accept their desires and behavior as every bit as normal as heterosexuals, and in a democracy, winning state-sanctioned marriage recognition is the creme de la creme.

I fail to see why this is so wrong.

[CardiacCoug]

And who is arguing that marriage is "bad for gay couples?" Marriage is a good institution, that's why many are hesitant to dramatically change it. Whether it is good or bad for any given couple is largely dependent upon the individuals involved.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

So if marriage is a "good institution" for straight couples then what is it about gay couples that should lead to them being excluded from this good institution? Not trolling. Honest question.

[CardiacCoug]

Wow. If you really believe that, then you really have no clue where people on my side of this issue are coming from.

You're right. I don't see where you are coming from.

It can't, and here's why: it's not really about marriage. What the gay community wants is normalization. They want society to accept their desires and behavior as every bit as normal as heterosexuals, and in a democracy, winning state-sanctioned marriage recognition is the creme de la creme.

Ahh... Now I get where you are coming from. You are against gay marriage because it is a symbol of societal acceptance of gay people. And you want them to continue to be marginalized and to be officially classified as abnormal. Got it.

[Viking]

Wow. If you really believe that, then you really have no clue where people on my side of this issue are coming from.



It can't, and here's why: it's not really about marriage. What the gay community wants is normalization. They want society to accept their desires and behavior as every bit as normal as heterosexuals, and in a democracy, winning state-sanctioned marriage recognition is the creme de la creme.

Some derivative church dishing out rogue marriage licenses isn't going to cut it. It's why many in the gay community reject civil unions as a compromise.

So gays deserve to be treated as abnormal? Not normal? Not normalized? How, precisely, would you phrase it?

[SeattleUte]

My three youngest kids (11, 7 and 6) are now old enough that I've discussed this with them, and I'll have to say that it's given me insight into what is so scary to the religious conservatives. You tell a child that legalizing gay marriage means that men can marry men and women can marry women. Someone like myself who doesn't believe in straight marriage being a "religious ordinance" insituted by God, and supports gay civil rights, can provide them no reference for gauging gay marriage vs. straight marriage as a desirable objective. You realize these kids are liberated with respect to marriage in a way that was inconceivable to us. It really does become, for them, all about choices that make them happy. (In fact, I'm more concerned about when they marry, the character of the spouse, etc., than the gender.)

I suppose that's a big part of the point for both supporters and opponents of gay marriage.

[Tex]

You're right. I don't see where you are coming from.

Definitely a problem for you.

Ahh... Now I get where you are coming from. You are against gay marriage because it is a symbol of societal acceptance of gay people. And you want them to continue to be marginalized and to be officially classified as abnormal. Got it.

So gays deserve to be treated as abnormal? Not normal? Not normalized? How, precisely, would you phrase it?

I do not wish to see homosexuality normalized. It’s a morally destructive and sexually deviant behavior that should be eschewed, much as other morally destructive and sexually deviant behavior should be eschewed.

As for homosexuals, they should be treated like human beings, with dignity and respect.* And afforded every regular protection of the law as American citizens.

*An exception to the "dignity and respect" clause:

[UtahDan]

Wrong though he is, I actually very much applaud Tex for being willing to be more honest about this than a lot of people are.

[Flystripper]

Wrong though he is, I actually very much applaud Tex for being willing to be more honest about this than a lot of people are.

I have to agree. Though I completely disagree with his position in just about every way, he is expressing what I think to be the official position of the church and the majority of its membership.

[The Rambam]

I do not wish to see homosexuality normalized. It’s a morally destructive and sexually deviant behavior that should be eschewed, much as other morally destructive and sexually deviant behavior should be eschewed.

As for homosexuals, they should be treated like human beings, with dignity and respect. And afforded every regular protection of the law as American citizens.

Tex, your problem is that you want to legislate your religious belief that homosexuality is deviant sin.

You use the world "morally" above, but you really mean "according to my religious belief". This is a huge difference. Morality is concerned with what is best for the greatest number in society. Religion is concerned with sin and God's will. If it were shown that a majority of society would benefit (be happier) by allowing same-sex marriage, you would not change your mind--because your position is based not on morality, but on religious belief. God hates gay marriage, so you want it outlawed--this regardless of the impact on individuals happiness. It is better to keep gays fenced out and festering than allowed in and accepted as normal.

Of course, a believer might take the position that their religion is always and inextricably the same as morality and ethics. But that would just make them insufferable like the Evangelicals right-wing of the Republican party. I'd much rather live on an island governed by dictator Barney Frank than one governed by dictator Jerry Falwell. Only on Frank's island could I also be a Mormon.

[Jacob]

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

So if marriage is a "good institution" for straight couples then what is it about gay couples that should lead to them being excluded from this good institution? Not trolling. Honest question.

Nothing should exclude them from that good institution. But that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about changing the good institution to include them, even though there is no significant legal benefits to them of their inclusion. It's all about social acceptance and the meaning of a word. I haven't seen a good argument for changing the institution. I haven't seen a good argument as to why the government ought to be involved in their increased social acceptance or moral approbation.

[Jacob]

Tex, your problem is that you want to legislate your religious belief that homosexuality is deviant sin.

Did he say that? I thought he said to treat them just like all other people, with dignity and respect. Those who propose laws creating gay marriage are attempting to legislate their moral (religious according to you) belief.

[Pelado]

Morality is concerned with what is best for the greatest number in society.

With that definition of morality, I don't think either side is provable. "What is best" is certainly in the eye of the beholder.