Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[TripletDaddy]

This is a great question, and one that I'll answer in the article.

Where will this article be published? I'd rather not have my great question answered in an amateur forum.

[jay santos]

Few want to admit it, let alone discuss it, but the fact remains that all of this "states should have their own marriage laws" stuff coming from Mormons and Utahns is very much about polygamy.

It's time for me to write an article, I guess.

It's a little bit conspiracy theory kind of stuff, because certainly there are reasons the church opposes gay marriage just because they don't want gays to marry, but I agree legalized polygamy is a much bigger issue for the church. The church would love for polygamy to be stamped out completely and everyone to just forget about it. Legalizing would cause quite a few PR issues for the church.

[TripletDaddy]

It's a little bit conspiracy theory kind of stuff, because certainly there are reasons the church opposes gay marriage just because they don't want gays to marry, but I agree legalized polygamy is a much bigger issue for the church. The church would love for polygamy to be stamped out completely and everyone to just forget about it. Legalizing would cause quite a few PR issues for the church.

how so? the Church has already changed its position (allegedly) on polygamy. How does legalizing polygamy change things?

[All-American]

how so? the Church has already changed its position (allegedly) on polygamy. How does legalizing polygamy change things?

Because we changed because it was illegal. What's our reason for not doing polygamy if it isn't illegal anymore?

[Topper]

Is anybody else slightly bored with this topic? Unless one is gay or has a close friend or relative that is gay, is anybody really that interested, other than for the sake of arguing?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Because we changed because it was illegal. What's our reason for not doing polygamy if it isn't illegal anymore?

I thought we changed because God told us to stop?

[Topper]

I thought we changed because God told us to stop?

But when did God tell us to stop, the first time, or the second time when God really meant it.

[TripletDaddy]

Because we changed because it was illegal. What's our reason for not doing polygamy if it isn't illegal anymore?

the Church's official position was that we changed the church's policy because of God's will, not because we wanted statehood. So I would assume the Church would simply continue to promulgate that rationale. Polygamy is now legal but it isn't God's will.

The one thing that I would imagine would force the Church to compose another one of those sanitized internet press releases is if a reporter were to do even a little bit of research and ask the Church directly about current temple sealings to more than one woman. that would be some gotcha media at work right there.

[Levin]

I'm questioning the intelligence of some who I thought were thoughtful, intelligent people. At least if F. Scott Fitzgeral's test is the test for intelligence: "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." And by function, I mean the ability to see where those with differing views are coming from, and have enough creativity, or understanding, to not be clouded by prejudice.

The gay rights movement is the final flowering if the sexual liberalization movement of the 60s. Sex has been placed on the center pedestal. Sex, above all else, is the means of self-actualization and self-realization. For those who think that sex is not the central act of mortality, but rather self-denial and restraint of the natural man, they take a different view. They think that no matter the orientation of the natural man, there is a higher law. Obviously the law of chastity. They take an eternal perspective: "For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your across, than that ye should be cast into hell." That is, sex is not the pathway to ultimate self-actualization in this life. Rather, the assertion of will is, the bending of one's will to conform --- at least try to make it conform --- to the faith in a higher law, for self-actualization in the next. But that's an old debate: whether mortality should require this, and whether it is worth denying oneself, and how could God ask that of a person, and how destructive it is to ask that of a human, etc. But some people believe that, and believe it very sincerely. In fact, many gay people believe that, and try to live accordingly.


The sanctioning effect of law is huge. If the law sanctions an act, that has a huge effect on public opinion, and public behavior. There is no debate on that point. And the sanctioning of gay marriage sanctions not marriage, but the sexual act. Marriage is already sanctioned; we already as a society have decided that marriage is important. And so adding a group of people within its bounds strengthens marriage, it does not diminish it. So I think the opposition to gay marriage is not an opposition to marriage, ultimately, but an opposition to gay sex. How could it be otherwise? If you believe in marriage, the conservative thing to do is to strengthen the institution by letting committed couples --- no matter the gender --- enter it. But that also sanctions gay sex. You would not ask a married couple to be celibate.


And so there are people who find themselves in this position: they believe that gay marriage should be a civil right, but who do not want society to sanction gay sex, because they believe in a higher law. Strange place to be in, but I think there are a lot of people like that. The answer, I think, is to acknolwedge that we live in a civil society where individual choice in such matters should not be up for debate, but rather should be a matter of individual conscience.

So the bottom line question is: are those who support civil marriage, but believe gay sex is a sin, bigots?

Or the more simple question: Are those who believe gay sex is a sin, are they bigots?

[TripletDaddy]

Is anybody else slightly bored with this topic? Unless one is gay or has a close friend or relative that is gay, is anybody really that interested, other than for the sake of arguing?

It is a tedious topic. Let's discuss BYU's lack of athleticism, weak schedule, and inability to win big games

[TripletDaddy]

I'm questioning the intelligence of some who I thought were thoughtful, intelligent people. At least if F. Scott Fitzgeral's test is the test for intelligence: "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." And by function, I mean the ability to see where those with differing views are coming from, and have enough creativity, or understanding, to not be clouded by prejudice.

The gay rights movement is the final flowering if the sexual liberalization movement of the 60s. Sex has been placed on the center pedestal. Sex, above all else, is the means of self-actualization and self-realization. For those who think that sex is not the central act of mortality, but rather self-denial and restraint of the natural man, they take a different view. They think that no matter the orientation of the natural man, there is a higher law. Obviously the law of chastity. They take an eternal perspective: "For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your across, than that ye should be cast into hell." That is, sex is not the pathway to ultimate self-actualization in this life. Rather, the assertion of will is, the bending of one's will to conform --- at least try to make it conform --- to the faith in a higher law, for self-actualization in the next. But that's an old debate: whether mortality should require this, and whether it is worth denying oneself, and how could God ask that of a person, and how destructive it is to ask that of a human, etc. But some people believe that, and believe it very sincerely. In fact, many gay people believe that, and try to live accordingly.


The sanctioning effect of law is huge. If the law sanctions an act, that has a huge effect on public opinion, and public behavior. There is no debate on that point. And the sanctioning of gay marriage sanctions not marriage, but the sexual act. Marriage is already sanctioned; we already as a society have decided that marriage is important. And so adding a group of people within its bounds strengthens marriage, it does not diminish it. So I think the opposition to gay marriage is not an opposition to marriage, ultimately, but an opposition to gay sex. How could it be otherwise? If you believe in marriage, the conservative thing to do is to strengthen the institution by letting committed couples --- no matter the gender --- enter it. But that also sanctions gay sex. You would not ask a married couple to be celibate.


And so there are people who find themselves in this position: they believe that gay marriage should be a civil right, but who do not want society to sanction gay sex, because they believe in a higher law. Strange place to be in, but I think there are a lot of people like that. The answer, I think, is to acknolwedge that we live in a civil society where individual choice in such matters should not be up for debate, but rather should be a matter of individual conscience.

So the bottom line question is: are those who support civil marriage, but believe gay sex is a sin, bigots?

Or the more simple question: Are those who believe gay sex is a sin, are they bigots?

Yes!

[jay santos]

Because we changed because it was illegal. What's our reason for not doing polygamy if it isn't illegal anymore?

That, and I see all kinds of other ramifications.

These splinter groups that practice polygamy are really shitty PR for the church. We'd like them to die. Legalizing polygamy would cause them to grow. And new ones to shoot up, especially when some (crazy) members aren't satisfied with the hypocrisy of not allowing it when it's legal. We also don't get the good PR (at least we seem to think it's good PR) of prosecuting these groups. Then you have questions like why are we sealing people in polygamous marriages when we don't allow it on earth though legal.

Polygamy is just a big problem that we'd like to ignore and let it go away. Legalizing it will stop that from happening.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You folks obviously missed the recent church article on polygamy. God doesn't need us to practice polygamy anymore because Utah is no longer a rugged frontier territory with an agrarian economy.

[byu71]

Enlighten me. In this day and age and demise of the traditional family, maybe for good reason, why do we care if polygamy becomes legal?

[San Juan Sun]

That, and I see all kinds of other ramifications.

These splinter groups that practice polygamy are really shitty PR for the church. We'd like them to die. Legalizing polygamy would cause them to grow. And new ones to shoot up, especially when some (crazy) members aren't satisfied with the hypocrisy of not allowing it when it's legal. We also don't get the good PR (at least we seem to think it's good PR) of prosecuting these groups. Then you have questions like why are we sealing people in polygamous marriages when we don't allow it on earth though legal.

Polygamy is just a big problem that we'd like to ignore and let it go away. Legalizing it will stop that from happening.

Is there an actual push to legalize polygamy now? Or is it just message board speculation? I don't live in Utah, so I'm not sure.