Someone Explain the Mormon Argument Against Same Sex Marriage to me, Please
If there is one thing I do not understand, it is Mormons using the argument that gay marriage might open the door for polygamists to practice their lifestyle freely. Now, I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see, I even have it hyphenated correctly) has not practiced polygamy openly since the 1890 manifesto, even though it took a little bit longer for this rule to be strictly enforced, but anyone who has attended a Mormon church for long enough knows that the men at least are hoping for the return of polygamy.
I now stating this on the blog of an Ex-Mormon is literally preaching to the choir The few readers I have left after my long hiatus know that Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 commands faithful members to practice celestial marriage and informs Emma Hale Smith that if she does not accept it, she will be destroyed.
If we leave the study of scripture aside for the moment, we can go back to Mormon history. The recent raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas brought the problem of polygam to light again, and while the church put press statements out to establish the lack of connection between the two groups, they are both Restorationist movements and claim the same history up to the year 1890. The polygamy of Brigham Young's time may have been slightly kinder, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never repudiated the doctrine of polygamy and still allows a spiritual form to take place. Many members are simply waiting until the time is right again when they will be allowed to take multiple wives.
If polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom and will be practiced on the Earth again when the time is right, the church should not oppose any movement that will allow this lifestyle to return among its members, unless it intends to repudiate its own doctrine. (The prophet *can* do this at any time. There is no standard like the Council of Trent and Vatican II where official Roman Catholic doctrine was established.)
The opposition to gay marriage from the church has nothing to do with allowing the practice of polygamy, but is rather rooted in the growing conservative trends among the general authorities than in looking at what might be in the long-term goals of the church. Of course, maybe I'm being too cynical. It just might be about the coupling of a man and a woman being necessary to create new spirit children or to bring new potential Mormons into this world.
posted by The Sinister Porpoise @ 2:05 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
I am LDS and don't feel any hatred towards gays. I do oppose same-sex marriage primarily because of the effect it will have on Children. Men and Women are different. Children benefit greatly by having a Mother and a Father. Sure there are some kids, because of circumstance or the poor choice of parents to treat each other poorly and get divorced. But the institution off marriage as commonly understood between a man and a woman provides a child with a mother and a father in a committed relationship. This idea that marriage is a contract between consenting individuals is a new one. There are other parties involved besides the husband and wife. Children and Society are involved. They are stakeholders. Children do the best where a mother and father raise them in a committed relationship. Same-sex marriage, by design and definition, precludes a child from having a mother or a father. As numerous studies show, society pays a price through a number of social ills when a mother or father is taken away from a child’s life.
The analogy that prohibiting same-sex marriage is the same thing as prohibiting marriage on the basis of race ignores an important reality. Men and Women ARE different in ways that matter to society. Only Women can be mothers. Only men can be fathers. The whole point of the civil rights struggle was that there are no meaningful differences between the color of your skin that mattered as to what you are able to do - take a job, be married etc.
A man cannot be a mother. A child should have a mother. I support the constitutional change that will keep the definition of the basic unit of society - a married couple - as one that will send the message to all future generations that truly first comes love, than comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage -- and the baby has a mother and a father. Society has an absolute right to promote this ideal. It provides the best chance for a stable productive citizen.
Please note, our law does not yet see marriage as simply as a contract between two persons. It is the sanction of the State and or Church. Why? Because both institutions have an interest in marriage and children.
If the proponents truly believed that their relationship was simply a "contract" between two consenting adults and not an issue for the state, why are they seeking the state sanction? Because they recognize that marriage is more than just a contract. Other stakeholders are involved - children. The state has a responsibility to encourage an environment that is best for children and that with a loving Mothers and Fathers. That is the standard that best helps children. The standard shouldn’t be changed just because people are not perfect. In California, civil unions already provide all of the benefits of marriage to same sex couples.
They recognize that marriage is more than just a contract. Other stakeholders are involved - children.
Welcome to the Lair of the Sinister Porpoise, Vanessa.
Shall I point out the flaws in your arguments or do you recognize them without my intervention?
Please explain the Mormon position in context of what I wrote. You have explained your personal position.
I hadn't heard this argument against same sex marriage (that allowing it might open the doors for polygamy) before reading your blog. That's a new one for me, who until about three months ago was an active Mormon. If this is really what Mormons are using nowadays as an argument to combat same sex marriage, I find it weak and absurd. What is a more probable argument (although admittedly a Mormon-created justification) is the definition of family provided in 1995's "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."
I should point out that, despite my upbringing, I now fully support same sex marriage. I am only offering my response by way of possible explanation for the LDS Church's opposition to the practice. The "Proclamation" defines Mormon's core beliefs about gender issues, marriage, and family.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home