Monday, August 11, 2008

I have a question

The July 1974 issue of the Ensign has the following question: Why does the Church oppose homosexuality? Why is it wrong? (4th question down)

The answer, in part, says
Homosexuals and lesbians seldom are happy people. Theirs is a relationship that is unnatural, one not bound by fidelity, trust, or loyalty, and one totally lacking in the meaningful family relationships that marriage offers. Homosexuality often espouses emotional problems because of the constant insecurity inherent in a relationship neither sanctioned by nor protected by the law.

Because there is no legal bond, homosexuality too often encourages, or at least permits, promiscuity.
So, my question is: shouldn't we be encouraging same sex marriage rather than fighting against it?

I'm just not grasping this circular logic - homosexuality is bad because same sex unions are not legally recognized; however, we must do everything we can to keep same sex unions from being legally recognized - because that would make homosexuality good? And we know it's bad, so we have to keep it bad by preventing same sex unions from being legally recognized.

I am really bothered by some of what I am reading in blogs about the situation in California. Stake Presidents meeting with people one on one soliciting donations for ProtectMarriage.com and also stating that the stake will be getting back lists of the donors and how much they paid. Perhaps that information is in the public record; but, for church leaders to actively solicit - and track - donations to a political organization is an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust - as far as I am concerned. I sure am glad I'm not living in California right now.

I'm getting very close to adding my letter supporting same sex marriage on signingforsomething.org.

14 comments:

MohoInTx said...

I am willing to bet they didn't consider gay marriage being an issue in the future... but it is definitely contradicting in my eyes. One of the reasons I am a supporter for marriage is in hopes that it lowers promiscuity levels..

MoHoHawaii said...

In 5, 10, 25 years, we will look back on all this. I think it's clear what side our future selves will wish we had been on.

Scot said...

"Homosexuals and lesbians seldom are happy people. Theirs is a relationship that is unnatural, one not bound by fidelity, trust, or loyalty, and one totally lacking in the meaningful family relationships that marriage offers. Homosexuality often espouses emotional problems... "

What? Hey, wait a dar-gon second. What a glaring bit of...

Oh, never mind!

Reading that just made me blow a slurry of half chewed cereal and milk into my sinuses. Thank you very much, Abe.

I'll just go back to my life, void of fidelity, trust, meaningful family relationships and so on. Sure, my family and social circle rejected me and would've rather fed me shards of glass than guide me through the dating process into monogamy, if it met my orientation, but that has nothing to do with anything. Heck, look at me; I sleep with a different man each night--a baker's dozen on the weekend--just to fill that subhuman void one can only get when their character collapses and they succumb to SSA. Woe is me.

(just in case-- ;-))

Kengo Biddles said...

Remember what era that was placed in--it was written a scant 5 years after the Stonewall riots in NY and I'll wager that the idea of "gay rights" hadn't even touched the "flyover" states.

I think, personally, to provide fairness to everyone, let there be civil unions/partnerships that confer the rights that are enjoyed by married couples, and let marriages be performed by the religious orders for those they choose to accept.

I don't know why gay marriage is such a bug-bear for so many people, and at some level, I say, let people do what they want. If it's truly against the will of God, his judgment will come down on them for it, and that's that.

And I agree...at some level, I'm really bothered about Stake Presidents soliciting donations--about the church taking such a stance on a political issue. I don't have a problem with people in the congregation taking that stance and soliciting support one-on-one...but the top down approach really, really bothers me.

Scott said...

I have a problem with the Marriage vs. Domestic Partnerships/civil union debates.

People think it's fine, but it's really a separate but equal argument.

Separate is never equal.

Kengo Biddles said...

Nota Bene: When I suggest civil unions, I mean take EVERYTHING that is currently associated legally with marriages and roll it into those.

Then ANYONE can have a civil union and the legal rights associated with them (everything that is currently tacked onto marriage); marriages are the things performed religiously and would have no bearing legally--it's essentially a religious/social thing, and that's it.

Abelard Enigma said...

When I suggest civil unions, I mean take EVERYTHING that is currently associated legally with marriages and roll it into those.

A rose by any other name would smell so sweet.

I used to believe as you do. Give them all of the same legal benefits - just don't call it marriage and don't call yourselves husbands and wives. But, I've seen the error of my ways.

Why have a double standard? I know members of the Gay Christian Network who are celibate while saving themselves for marriage - with marriage being defined as a religious ceremony and a commitment before God, even though it may not be recognized by the state. Is their union less valid than a heterosexual couple who didn't practice the same restraints before marriage?

Something else to consider, a civil union may not as close to a marriage you may want to believe. What about a scenario where your significant other is in a serious accident. A civil partnership may or may not give you the same rights as a spouse (depending on how the law was written). Also, consider a situation where your significant other is not a legal resident of the US. Being married to a US citizen grants you permanent residence. Can we say the same for civil partnerships? That one gets real tricky because marriage is state matter but citizenship and residency is a federal matter.

Kengo Biddles said...

The thing about your arguments (and they are valid, I do concede that point) is that IF marriage was a purely religious social thing and that civil unions were utterly entailed with all the rights that "marriage" currently enjoys in our legal system, they would be moot.

I don't see that happening--but I don't see that the Conservative Right will ever feel warm and fuzzy about gay marriage--this is going to be a long-standing issue for the next while. Look at how long it took us to overcome other social issues...

Kengo Biddles said...

Oh...and to make sure you're understanding...I'm not proposing civil unions for the gays and marriages for the straights. I'm saying let everyone start out with civil unions and the legal rights that are currently ascribed to marriage.

Then, if the religions of those civilly-unionized accept them being "married," so much the better for them.

Abelard Enigma said...

Oh, I see what you're saying - separate the legal and religious aspects of marriage for everyone.

An interesting idea - but wouldn't it be much easier to just let gays get married using the traditional definition?

Kengo Biddles said...

Yes...but convince people like Ann Coulter that it's not going to make all our children suddenly decide to be gay, and husbands abandon their wives pell-mell, and lions lay down with lambs and colors mix with whites...

I think it's a more viable solution than allowing gay "marriage", just because of the Right-Wing Conservatives out there who're hung up on such a minor thing.

Marlo said...

and just an additional commentary on the logic of that ensign quote -
"homosexuals and lesbians"....
So lesbians are something other than homosexual? Jeepers, now I am so confused.... ;)

Beck said...

So, let me get this straight... the quote argues that unhappiness and legal options are the reason homosexuality is bad. So overcoming unhappiness (being happy) and overcoming legal obstructions to marriage would argue that it would be good?

Sounds simple enough to me...

Scot said...

"So lesbians are something other than homosexual?"

lol, that reminded me of a spam email I once got. The subject line was "HOMOSEXUAL LESBIANS DOING IT!!!"

Clearly a doomed and redundant attempt at marketing in my inbox.