the life: Hmmm...disturbing.
Interesting post here from Soelberg. Even though I get cited here (copyright 2008), I find a couple things to disagree with (disclosure: I didn't watch the video due to BYU blocking YouTube. Also I'm very tired right now. Basically, I refuse to take long-term responsiblity for what I'm going to say, especially the details).
Marriage is not only a semantic thing, and I certainly don't agree that semantics are not important, as is implied. Semantic shifts change attitudes. A large part of the anti gay marriage movement is a fight for the hearts and minds of the future.
If the government says a same sex marriage is a marriage, people will eventually accept that. Though my perception of marriage will not change, other peoples' perceptions will change and in a country where the majority more or less makes the rules this will unavoidably affect me. I will be regarded as a bigot and a religious fanatic for not accepting the official definition. My children (should such unfortunate beings ever come to be) will be taught in school that homosexual activity is acceptable, and an option if they're interested.
Also, as far as adoption goes, there is a problem. Right now, as I understand it, an unmarried woman (lesbian or not) can adopt, but single men cannot. In those states where gay marriage has been legalized, religious organizations who coordinate adoptions have been forced to either allow SS married couples to adopt or not offer adoption services.
I disagree with what Brad (from the comments) says about the government enforcing morality. We are mostly ruled by the majority, so that the majority can enforce with organized violence that kind of society that it believes is right, proper, and moral (within the constraints of the Constitution and Bill of Rights).
Most convincing arguments for welfare policy, universal health care, endangered species protection, free public education, etc. have a very significant moral and even religious aspect. It's morality that tells me that someone who can't afford health care should be able to get life-saving treatment (within the realm of the possible of course). There is no automatic force that makes it so that healthy people have to pay to treat sick people. It is a moral call: a sacrifice of efficiency (taxes have dead weight losses and regulations unavoidably affect output) for a greater moral good.
Most importantly is that these policies are binding, and are enforced ultimately by violence –– if you decide to not comply with the pertaining taxes or regulations you go to jail. All laws limit in a small but real way individual freedom to choose in order to serve a perceived larger good. There is a balancing act involved here, of course, but this is nothing new, and it is nothing that can disappear as long as we have governments that can force people to do things (ie all real government by definition).
The comparison with baptism is not valid. Baptism is not just a physical act; it's a religious covenant. The physical act without conviction is not a good thing and not recognized by anyone who matters (ie God). It's a lie. No law can justly force people to think one way or another, but laws can justly regulate behavior.
Now, the way to regulate homosexual behavior is debatable. I would be tempted to push more for constitutional amendments (nationally and locally) that say that same sex marriage is not a guaranteed right to prevent a few judges from forcing it on everyone, but it would still leave states or the country free to do what they believe is right. But an amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, though an extreme measure not really taken seriously until recently, does send a much stronger signal, would be more permanent, and is completely legitimate in our civil democracy if done legally.
As such, the church's involvement (done completely within the democratic framework) in this moral issue is perfectly legitimate (and if you think the church is the kingdom of God, it has authority to take a stance on whatever it wants, even though it does not now typically do so for practical and PR reasons that we can discuss later). And given the present threat, such intervention is most likely necessary.
Anyway, I'd be interested in input on this.
Posts
9 months ago
3 comments:
Hey, sorry...I forgot about the y's youtube-o-phobia. Here's a link to the ad, one's in flash format (viewable with vlc) and the other is a .mov.
Anyway, I still maintain that the church overstepped its bounds in dealing with the proposition. Believing that it is the kingdom of God (and knowing that no unhallowed hand can stop the work) makes me think this way even more so. The church's policy of press releases and letters to wards reminding them of what the church believes, and THEN allowing the church members to take control would have, and should have been sufficient. JS remarked that he taught correct principles and let the people govern themselves. This should be true today.
I do agree wholeheartedly that the morality of a people will reflect the laws of the land. Knowing that God has hallowed this land for us drives some people to think that we must make the land righteous. We are and have always been responsible for being righteous ourselves, and then allowing the spirit to work on others so they can change themselves. The spirit does not force or coerce; likewise, we should not force or coerce a mass majority to be constricted to our moral standards.
Lastly, I'm not 100% on the whole adoption issue, I was just surprised when I found out that my friend's boss was adopting (she's lesbian). I think that the best way to combat this is in the home, and as situations get worse, we must have stronger and better homes: stronger and better parenting. (At the same time, I'm not saying that those families with self-declared homosexuals are bad homes with bad parents.)
I think that's all...I gotta run to class.
haha, i didn't send the link:
http://drop.io/saynotoprop8ad
First, the church did not "force or coerce a mass majority to be constricted to our moral standards." It did not force anyone to do anything. We worked 100% within the democratic system. It did nothing illegal. Prop 8 passed by a majority vote, the same kind of majority that chose Barack Obama in California (whose election McCain supporters are still required to accept).
If the church can take a stance on what alcohol laws should be put in place, tax policy affecting the church, pornographic store zoning, whether the John Birch Society is crazy, and whether Yucca Mountain should be used for nuclear waste storage (which it has and does), then it can take a stance that they should support Proposition 8. Again, there is no coup, no force going on. It's majority rule.
Yes, the ideal is to teach correct principles, then let people govern themselves. But in the real world, principles must be taught and applied in specific, simple, and practical ways for organization purposes and to get the marginal people in line (commandments, policies, laws, etc).
Freedom of conscience is not infringed upon. If someone didn't want to vote for prop 8, no one forced them to. If someone doesn't believe in the Democratic platform, they don't have to. If someone doesn't want to pay tithing or support church policy, they don't have to be a member of the church.
If someone doesn't agree with the ban on same sex marriage, they are perfectly free to work to change the law.
If someone disagrees with a war and is drafted, he can work to change the policy and allow conscientious objectors, or he can work to convince Congress to end funding for the war. But until he can accomplish this, he must obey the law, or face the consequences.
If someone thinks his taxes are unfairly high, he can work to get them lowered, but he must pay them until he can manage that or go to prison.
If someone thinks he should be able to own an automatic weapon, he can give money to the NRA, but again he must obey the law as it stands or face the consequences.
This is the way liberal democracy works. A certain degree of individualism must be stifled or we would have chaos. Freedom of speech, press, suffrage, assembly, religion, conscience and others help ensure that basic individualism, especially as far as beliefs go, is preserved. But what official policy is and what recognized as legitimate by the government is a different matter that can and is set by the majority.
Finally, that ad was bullshit. The LDS church, again, did not force anyone to do anything. From lds.org: " As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility. "
It supported a very honest PR campaign, and when the information of both sides became well known (the GLBT movement certainly wasn't quiet this whole time!) the voters chose to support Prop 8. It was honest, clearly communicated information that passed Prop 8, not a religious coup. The church just happened to assist in the dissemination of that information.
Encouraging people to give money to a cause is not a crime. It's called freedom of speech. The GLBT campaign lost because it failed to convince the public of the justice of its cause, not because sinister missionaries broke into gay people's houses and took their rights.
Post a Comment