In another post there was an interesting discussion between Phil and Hyrum on the recently overturned Prop 22 which baned gay marriage in California along with then ineptitude of our Governor. I think this topic is deserving of it's own post.
Henry David Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience: "Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." What this means to me is that just because something is sanctioned or not sanctioned by the government does not make it right or wrong. It is up to every individual to decide their own values, it is wrong to try to force those values on others by means of the government which is a monopoly on power. My point is; who cares if the government puts their stamp of approval on any marriage, homo or heterosexual, it doesn't make it any more valid. Marriage is a personal /religious affair that should not have government involvement in the first place. If two gay people have government approval to get married and according to your personal definition of marriage they aren't really married then who cares what a government certificate says. When someone puts validation of their personal beliefs in the hands of the community they suspend their own individuality, loosing freedom and accountability.
In the end the only conceivable purpose of government is to protect individual liberty. This is based upon the belief that a mature individual is accountable and able to make their own choices, therefore they should not be forced by others to make the "correct" decision. The government should only step in if someones choice impedes on another's freedom. If a mature adult chooses to marry another individual of the same sex it should not be the communities responsibility to prohibit that individual decision, even if they don't agree with it.
One of the governments roles is to protect those who are not capable of fending for themselves like children. Many opponents of gay marriage claim that it should be prohibited so that gays cannot corrupt young children after adopting them when they are married. Since traditionally children have been brought up in a family of a man and a woman it lies with gay couples to prove that they would provide an equal environment to raise a child with heterosexual couples before they would be allowed to adopt. I do not believe that they can prove this conclusively so logically I don't think that gay couples should be permitted to adopt, married or not. By prohibiting gays to marry because they would be then be able to adopt is a slippery slope fallacy because they are two separate issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
First of all, I don't agree with your statement that government approved gay marriage and allowing gay couples to adopt is a slippery slope fallacy. It's hard for me to think of any other two issues that are more inseparably connected. I would like to hear your reasoning behind that conclusion.
From an individual liberty standpoint, or what a libertarian may argue, is that government should not have control over marriage at all, and that it should be a contract involving individuals and religions rather than government. The fact of the matter is though, that this is not the society we live in. So much of our government policy is defined by the difference between definitions like single mothers, divorcees, married, guardianship, ect. to define income tax, financial aid, welfare, ect. If there was a major overhaul done on government and such things were done away with, then there would be a very strong argument as to whether or not government needed to define marriage. However, as our system stands, government needs to define what marriage is, so it has the responsibility to make the correct decision.
I will set up my argument in a logical fashion using deductive reasoning regarding adoption, because I think that is the most important factor here: protecting children.
1. The government has the responsibility to take children away from abusive homes.
2. The government has the responsibility to place those children into homes once they are taken from the original home.
3. Children deserve a stable, safe home, with a loving mother and a father to have the most chance of succeeding and becoming contributing, healthy, members of society.
4. If the government defines a same-sex household in the same way as a traditional household, with all the same rights and privileges of a married couple, what grounds could a judge possible have to not place a child that is custody of the state into a same-sex household?
I understand that the proponents of same-sex marriage disagree with point #3, and try to argue that a child does not need a mother and a father, and that a same sex marriage can offer an equally stable household, but psychological development studies, statistics, and common sense shows otherwise.
I understand that the homosexual camp tries very hard to spin this as a civil rights issue, that just as the blacks were allowed to drink from the same fountain, so should we allow them to all the same privileges of a traditional household. I understand that Hollywood is buying into this idea. If any trendy TV show doesn't already have a gay couple in it, I guarantee, it's only a matter of time. The fact is though, although it's a remarkably clever tact, it is NOT a civil rights issue. If a genetically predisposed alcoholic wants to adopt kids, there is a reason we don't let them. Everyone has choices and freedom, and no one deserves hate or distain, but certain choices of lifestyle demand certain consequences or lack of privileges in a healthy society.
I agree with Thoreau to some extent that laws do not make men more just, they are merely a reflection of the people. That however is only true for a true democracy. In Thoreau's time, our government was much smaller and more in the hands of the people. For example, in an extreme case, let’s consider China. Their law to limit each family to one child has re-defined the society, and forced it to head in a certain moral direction. But regardless, the whole purpose of law is to protect the innocent. (In this case- children up for adoption.)
This is the case that makes a ban on same-sex marriages blatantly obvious to me.
There is more to it though. The church, although having a reputation of trying very hard to stay politically neutral on all matters, did a tremendous amount to help prop 22 pass. I believe it was more than just stopping same-sex adoption. If we consider any government in history, every single one had some impact, large or small on the morality of its people. At the very least it was a reflection of the morality of its people. We know, from God's dealing with men- and this is true for every legitimate religion of which I know, that marriage and families are one of the most sacred things on earth. It is the keystone upon which our society is built, and how it still thrives- an environment where new people can be brought up and taught to be good, wholesome, moral people. I believe it is clear from history and conscience that to the extent to which that foundation is destroyed, brings about an ever more degraded society.
About 4 years ago, when this same situation reared its ugly head in Massachusetts, I read a very well-written article by Orson Scott Card (a well-known science fiction writer who is also LDS), which is also very timely for the current situation with California. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
I won't try to quote the entire article, which is too long to post here, but I will include a few tidbits and then add some of my own comments at the end. I encourage everyone to read the article. Here are some tidbits from it - all are in quotes, since they are Mr. Card's word's & not my own:
--- Beginning of quotes ---
"Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society."
"Regardless of their opinion of homosexual "marriage," every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process."
"And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech.""
"We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family.""
"But this doesn't turn them into families, or even make rational people believe they're families. It just makes it politically unacceptable to use the word family in any meaningful way."
"The same thing will happen to the word marriage if the Massachusetts decision is allowed to stand, and is then enforced nationwide because of the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution."
"Just because you give legal sanction to a homosexual couple and call their contract a "marriage" does not make it a marriage. It simply removes marriage as a legitimate word for the real thing."
"Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization."
"In fact, it will do harm. Nowhere near as much harm as we have already done through divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. But it's another nail in the coffin. Maybe the last nail, precisely because it is the most obvious and outrageous attack on what is left of marriage in America."
"Supporters of homosexual "marriage" dismiss warnings like mine as the predictable ranting of people who hate progress. But the Massachusetts Supreme Court has made its decision without even a cursory attempt to ascertain the social costs. The judges have taken it on faith that it will do no harm."
"You can't add a runway to an airport in America without years of carefully researched environmental impact statements. But you can radically reorder the fundamental social unit of society without political process or serious research."
"Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like."
"But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction."
"What happens now if children grow up in a society that overtly teaches that homosexual partnering is not "just as good as" but actually is marriage?"
"Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech."
"Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of "families" in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual "marriages" as positive role models."
"Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden)."
"The propaganda mill will pound our children with homosexual marriage as a role model. We know this will happen because we have seen the fanatical Left do it many times before."
"So when our children go through the normal adolescent period of sexual confusion and perplexity, which is precisely the time when parents have the least influence over their children and most depend on the rest of society to help their children grow through the last steps before adulthood, what will happen?"
"Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back."
"Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society."
"In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it."
"Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it."
"In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way."
"Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith."
"The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."
"It's that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual "marriage.""
"They are unhappy, but they think it's because the rest of us "don't fully accept them.""
"Homosexual "marriage" won't accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it."
"All the while, the P.C. elite will be shouting at dismayed parents that it is somehow evil and bigoted of them not to rejoice when their children commit themselves to a reproductive dead end."
"But there is nothing irrational about parents grieving at the abduction-in-advance of their grandchildren."
"Don't you see the absurd contradiction? A postulated but unproven genetic disposition toward homosexuality is supposed to be embraced and accepted by everyone as "perfectly natural" -- but the far stronger and almost universal genetic disposition toward having children and grandchildren is to be suppressed, kept to yourself, treated as a mental illness."
"You're unhappy that your son wants to marry a boy? Then you're sick, dangerous, a homophobe, filled with hate. Control your natural desires or be branded as evil by every movie and TV show coming out of P.C. Hollywood!"
"Compassion and tolerance flow only one way in the "Wonderland" of the politically correct."
---- End of quotes ----
Later in the article, he goes on to say how the very life of our civilization is dependent on the trust its citizens have in its government to uphold basic societal norms such as traditional marriage, which have such a major effect on the future of our descendants, and the society in which they will live. A society where these traditional norms are lost will not be seen as worth defending from hostile forces from within as well as from without, and will only result in more apathy, resignation, and despair on the part of those who feel powerless to control it, and will result in more isolation and separation on the part of those who are determined not to let such a culture drag them and their loved ones down with it.
I agree with pretty much all of his points. The only other thing I can think of to add is that another reason to adamantly oppose this recent "court" decision, aside from the logical arguments posed by Mr. Card's article, is, for those of us who are LDS church members, the fact that the church has come out so strongly against homosexual marriage (like Hyrum pointed out, a rare case where they get involved in political processes). Though we don't "blindly" follow our church leaders, we take what they say in great esteem, believing them to be wise, intelligent, good men who have proven throughout their lives that they are faithful, honest, and selfless toward others, and are men who we also believe are able make inspired decisions, and I believe that they would not make such a decision as this lightly to say the least.
I was just reading my previous comment and I realized this sentence sounds weird:
"If a genetically predisposed alcoholic wants to adopt kids, there is a reason we don't let them."
I meant a genetically predisposed alcoholic that has acted on it, and is now an alcoholic. Although never proven, correlation studies may indicate that one's genetic makeup can make it harder for them to overcome certain obstacles. Of course no one should be prejudged for not acting on a tendency that may be in their genetics.
Hyrum, it's good that you clarified that. An example which comes to mind is from my immediate family: Angel and Kyle are both most likely pre-disposed towards having a very high sensitivity to alcohol and also drugs, due to both the fact that their birth mother used marijuana during the pregnancy, and the fact that there is a high incidence of alcohol and drug abuse in their birth family history, especially alcohol. We've stressed to them this fact repeatedly, so it's hopefully an extra incentive, along with them being raised in a church and family environment which forbids these, to steer them away from ever even touching them, even in small amounts, since their susceptability to addition is so high. As as long as they adhere to that, then they should be fine and be able to lead normal, productive lives. Their birth parents, on the other hand, due to their alcohol and other drug abuse problems, had their children taken away from them, and to this day are likely stuck in the same "pit" from which it will be very difficult for them to emerge.
In getting back to the subject of discussion, and how this might relate to that in some way: a child predisposed in some way towards "going either way" as far as their "sexual preference" is concerned, would be far better served in a family where there is stability with both a father and a mother in the home rather than a home where the child might be steered towards homosexuality. As long as that child was taught that it was undesirable to be a homosexual, and the child is not sexually abused, that child would likely grow up to be normal, but if allowed to be adopted by a homosexual couple, would be more likely to choose that route. This is kind of a gray area here, but my main point is that allowing homosexual "couples" to adopt will only encourage more homosexuality. Some people would probably choose that route no matter how they are raised, but I'm convinced that there are a sizeable number of current homosexuals who could have gone either way if their youthful environment and experiences had turned out differently, either because of outright sexual abuse, or because of how they were raised, etc. Unfortunately, the far left and the homosexual community in general all believe that it's "all or nothing", meaning that either a person is born that way or not born that way, and that environment has nothing to do with whether they turn out one way or the other. I do not believe that. Though we don't know to what exact degree environment plays a part, I think it is based on 3 things, which vary in degree of each, from individual to individual:
1) Personal choice, or what the person inwardly desires in their heart - I refer to this as "non genetic" or "spiritual pre-disposition"
2) environment
3) genetic pre-disposition.
1 and 3 can be extremely difficult to distinguish, but I feel that they both play a very significant part in how a person "turns out". An example of this might be a person who has some kind of genetic flaw determined by 3, but with a spiritual pre-disposition strongly in conflict with the genetic flaw, and hopefully will win out over it in the end. Environment, however, can tip the balance either way, which I why environment is so important. So to summarize my point, allowing homosexuals to marry only increases the likelihood of those "kind of in between" kids to go the way of being homosexual, by further eroding the traditional societal taboos against it, and other sexual deviances, from the traditional norms. Homosexuals and far left liberals will be difficult to convince otherwise, since they want their lifestyles to be considered normal, and don't want to be thought of as weird or abnormal, and want to force everyone to conform to their line of thinking, to the detriment of society as a whole, a kind of "lowest common denominator" mentality, which we see so much of in modern "popular" culture.
Great comments Phil, you analyzed the issue in way that I've never really thought of before, but it makes a lot of since. Thanks for the OSC article too, there were a few minor points that I don't completely agree with that he made, but overall I though it brought up a lot of really good points. I think your point too about the "lowest common denominator" mentality is right on. The PC philosophy that has been adopted by the media and our culture is that nothing is "wrong" anymore, and there is no truth, it's just a different opinion. I think this is a dangerous philosophy because it encourages people to stop looking for truth.
Most people that I know that are in support of Gay marriage either view it as a civil rights issue, or they argue- "but I know gay people, and they are all really nice." It has also really surprised me to see peoples opinions influenced after they see a moving Hollywood movie or show where their favorite protagonist was a homosexual (surrounded by all the antagonist gay bashers).
Very surprising to most people, almost anyone is "really a nice person" once you get to know them on a personal level. If you don't believe me, try visiting a prison sometime, or try to befriend a sexual offender. That shouldn't be a way of deciding policy.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin", I have heard it been said. Gay bashing and persecution have probably damaged the traditional marriage campaign more than anything else, because thats when people start seeing it as a civil rights issue.
However, we need to separate facts from fiction, and truth from emotion, and that's what the decision should be based on. I've heard very few gay marriage proponents be able to say that it wont drastically change the traditional meaning of a family, or severely alter society. I wonder why they stay away from those issues? ...it makes the whole argument pretty clear to me.
Thanks for the intelligent posts Phil and Hyrum I found them very enlightening and along with some personal research I am converted to the belief that same sex marriage leading to gay adoption is not a slippery slope fallacy. There I said it... I was wrong.
Here is an example to prove the point from Wikipedia topic LGBT adoption:
In February 2007, France's highest court ruled against a lesbian couple who tried to adopt a child. The court stated that the woman's partner cannot be recognized unless the birth mother withdraws parental rights. The court ruling dismissed the couple's rights to co-parent the child, and stated the only way it could allow adoption would be to legalize same-sex marriage.
French high court rejects same-sex adoption - Queer Lesbian Gay Election News - Gay.com
Same sex adoptions in the US are not currently illegal, married or not. Like all adoptions it is decided by local judges so if a gay couple wants to adopt they simply find a sympathetic magistrate. I thought Phil’s comments on genetic predisposition were right on the mark, giving an excellent logical argument to why gays should not adopt. Since if gay marriages were legalized more judges would allow gay adoptions then they should not be legalized, this is the only reason why gays should not be allowed legal marriage.
As Hyrum stated:
“The fact of the matter is though, that this is not the society we live in. So much of our government policy is defined by the difference between definitions like single mothers, divorcees, married, guardianship, ect. to define income tax, financial aid, welfare, ect.”
Since the legal contract of marriage entitles one to certain advantages it is not fair for the government to deny those privileges based on the perceived morality of that individual. It is not the governments place to pass judgment on personal decisions that doesn’t affect the freedom of others. Don’t you see the danger in a system where the government decides the merit of a certain lifestyle? In this case since you agree that it is wrong to be gay you support penalization, but what about next time when the government’s perception is not in line with yours? You will shout at the top of your lungs that the government has no right interfering in your personal life. When we use the government to advocate our own personal agenda doors are opened that are not easily closed. Since it is beneficial for Americans to be God fearing should the government give tax disadvantages to atheists to encourage “morality”? Since we lived in a flawed system where the government is involved in marriage at all gays should have the option of civil unions with all the same advantages of marriage except adoption.
I agree 100% with what Orson Card said about our constitutional rights being destroyed by courts deciding the legitimacy of gay marriage. The purpose of the judicial system is to make decisions based on laws that were decided by a democratic/or republic system, not to make new laws based on their personal beliefs. This absolute power of the judicial branch is a gross usurpation of democracy.
If Mr. Card’s dubious opinion that the government’s tolerance of same sex marriages will lead to its widespread acceptance is true then I lament more that Americans are allowing the government to dictate their morality and less the acceptance of homosexuality. If Americans can’t decide moral issues themselves without the governments input then how are they fit to govern themselves? Are we the masters of our government or is it the master of us?
From Phil’s post paraphrasing OSC:
“Later in the article, he goes on to say how the very life of our civilization is dependent on the trust its citizens have in its government to uphold basic societal norms such as traditional marriage, which have such a major effect on the future of our descendants, and the society in which they will live.”
I could not disagree more. It is not the government’s responsibility to uphold basic societal norms but the responsibility of each and every individual as long as those norms don’t infringe on the rights of others. Most citizens of Nazi Germany trusted their government “to uphold basic societal norms” without thinking of the values those norms were contradicting. Our civilization is dependent on us objectively questioning the “norms” that society, the government, and other influences try to pass to us. In a democracy our societal norms are dictated by the sum total of individual values not decided by the government.
Great comments, Paul and Hyrum. We've got a good lively discussion going here.
Paul, I wanted to take a few minutes to clarify a little better the last comment which you pointed out in your last post:
What I meant by saying that the government needs to uphold the basic traditional norms of society, I meant basically that in order for a democratic government to function properly it cannot allow a group of judges or other unelected officials who have no accountability to the public (by popular vote) to dictate to the public by redefining laws, especially those which are profound departures from what the majority of the public wants, and are of an experimental nature such as homosexual "marriage". If this is allowed to happen, then the public will eventually lose confidence in the government's ability to be democratic and can result in apathy concerning the value of being able to vote, and overall resignation of people to a tyranny of "judges" and other non-elected bureaucracies, especially once the popular media is able to convince them that it's the "right thing to do". If the majority of the population chooses to legalize homosexual marriage, then so be it, but we are far from that now, hopefully. If we ever get to that point though, then I will fear for the future of our government and country.
I also think that our church is "right on" when it comes to focusing on changing the hearts and minds of people by "showing them a better way", than by trying to change government. Only in rare instances does our church get involved in any political discourse, and then not on the candidates themselves, but only on laws or proposals which it sees as crucial to the future of our society. When a society consists of mainly people who are following the basic tenets of the Gospel, then it's pretty much guaranteed that they will "govern themselves" and there will be no need for a government, save one which will protect them from enemies without or from within who seek to exalt themselves at the expense of others.
What concerns me the most with what I see happening with new laws such as this whole gay marriage thing, are the things, Paul, which you would also agree with: Rather than an expansion of freedom, which this might appear to be on the surface, this is really a restriction of freedom, as it will cause more strict and unreasonable laws to be enacted to "protect" this new definition of marriage, such as outlawing any apparent discrimination against homosexuals in any way, shape, or form. We see that now with many of the anti-discrimination "laws" that are getting enacted to "punish" those who disagree with the new laws by labeling them as "hate speech", etc. I fear that if this trend continues, at some point our church will even experience persecution at the hands of these people, since they will feel that we "discriminate" against homosexuals by not allowing them to be married in the temple, and by not sanctioning homosexual "sex" as acceptable, and on and on. The other thing I see happening is that by allowing homosexuals to marry, who's to say that any group of people shouldn't be also allowed to "marry" each other? Not just polygamy, but any group of 2 or more people, or even people and their pets. Regarding polygamy, I think it would be a mistake to have it legalized, by the same points I made above. In our current political environment, once you legalize it or any alternate form of marriage, it then opens a pandora's box of other types of "marriage" which will get legalized and then "protected". And with the legalization comes the "need" to protect the new marriage definition (i.e. more laws and more free speech restrictions).
I also see traditional marriage as one of those fundamental "societal norms" that needs to be maintained. I agree that it is the people's duty to uphold it, but since the government should be simply a reflection of the "popular will", then I see it as by definition "upheld by the government". I see it as one of our duties to help educate people as to the importance of this, otherwise, as we can see in our culture and society, and the bias of our media, that people will eventually become brainwashed into thinking that it's OK, until it is too late to turn back and the freedom of speech of people like us is stifled, and freedom is lost and tyranny results.
A final note: Some will compare this discussion to the controversy surrounding polygamy during the 1800's, when our church was persecuted by the federal government, by trampling on its rights to practice its religious beliefs. Most or all LDS feel that the church was unfairly treated and persecuted, and I also believe this. However, I can also see the government's reasoning: I think they felt that they couldn't have allowed the LDS to practice it without other "jealous people" wanting it legalized for everyone else, which would have opened a "can of worms" as far as upsetting the rest of the country's societal norms, and that is valid reasoning. But on the other hand, the church's position was that the government didn't need to legalize it for the rest of the country, just allow the LDS to practice it in their own isolated haven, far from the encroachments and influence of the rest of society. That is also sound reasoning. However, that kind of reasoning wouldn't work in modern society. You would have to legalize it for everyone if for anyone at all, since our LDS communities are so tightly integrated with the rest of society, not just in the USA but in other countries across the world (except maybe in Utah :)
So the reasoning of just allowing certain groups to practice polygamy or other forms of marriage wouldn't hold water. It would have to be legalized for everyone, and with their legalization would come the whole "can of worms" of new laws and free speech restrictions needed to "protect" them, plus all the inherents abuses and legal, domestic, and moral nightmares which go with them.
I know this conversation ended forever ago, but I find that on this blog, everything Sparrow says always resonates with me. I love it!
The cool thing about a blog is that the discussion never really ends. Old topics can always be revisited as new ideas are thought of, or as situations change. I have it set up for me that I get e-mailed whenever a new post appears on the blog, so that it facilitates further discussion of older posts (I don't have to keep re-checking). I don't know if you can do that as an author, but if not I can always give people administration privileges if you are interested.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand... The LDS church's stance on the gay marriage initiative that will be on the ballot this fall has caused me to think even more extensively about this issue. For those of you that don't know, or are in other states, the church is treating this initiative (which will now be an amendment to the California constitution so the courts can't throw it out) similar to how they addressed prop 22, and are asking for time, energy, and where possible monetary support to help this initiative get passed. Such letters and directives came directly from the prophet and first presidency, whom we believe receive direct revelation from God. As common to all revelation, it is left to the members to seek personal revelation to find out what the appropriate level of support is and what the will of God is for each one of us. This is where I am at now.
In thinking about the issue of marriage, I question if marriage should be treated in the same way that I have been treating other topics of governmental control in this blog (gun control, welfare, health care). I don't know if marriage lies in the category of the governmental regulation vs individual liberties debate. Many of these issues can be argued that they are contrary to the constitution, or restrict free markets or otherwise detract from our country.
To me, the issue of marriage is different. For as long as our history as humans and society has existed, the idea of marriage and family has existed as well. The founders of our country, and even going back to their inspiration- Blackstone, Montesquieu and other founders of democracy realized this basic foundational principle. They never questioned government's role in protecting it, as part of protecting life, liberty and property. It really is the most basic, essential framework upon which our society is framed. In thinking about it this way, I realize that government doesn't define marriage with terms like divorced, single mother, alimony ect., but society does. However, there are fundamental principles of society that government should and must protect. We entrust them with this duty.
A basic role of government is to defend the societal rules of human life. Why are experiments allowed on animals, but not on mentally retarded children of lesser ability? Society defines that human life is special, and must be protected at all cost. This is an example of another fundamental rule of society: The sanctity of human life.
I think that the protection of the family unit falls in the same category. It should be protected at all costs. It would be a shame to see it treated just as "another issue". If that pillar falls, so much falls with it. We have already seen the effects, right? Look at all the problems that have come about already due to the destruction of the family. The far reaching effects, I think are more than we can imagine. Think of in the future, when churches are no longer allowed to preform ceremonies for men and women unless they do the same for gay couples.
Have we come so far as a society, that we forget what made us great?
To me, the protection of marriage and the family unit is so basic, so fundamental, that it should not even have to be put in our constitution. Unfortunately, that is where our society is at. In order for our society to remain in tact, it must be defended.
Thanks Rachel, what I nice thing to say. I like your posts too (hopefully we will see more of them).
I like what Phil wrote about the majority deciding the legality of homosexual marriage; I don’t think it’s the job of the judicial system to set precedent in this way. The drawback to this strict democratic form of government is that it doesn’t protect individual rights from an unjust temporary majority. It is important to remember that a majority should not always suffice over sound precedent. I like how Milton Friedman put it in Capitalism and Freedom page 24
“We are thus led to accept majority rule in one form or another as an expedient. That majority rule is an expedient rather than itself a basic principle is clearly shown by the fact that our willingness to resort to majority rule, and the size of the majority we require, themselves depend on the seriousness of the issue involved. If the matter is of little moment and he minority has no strong feelings about being overruled a bare plurality will suffice. On the other hand, if the minority feels strongly about the issue involved, even a bare majority will not do. Few of us would be willing to have issues of free speech, for example decided by a bare majority. Our legal structure is full of such distinctions among kinds of issues that require different kinds of majorities. At the extreme are those issues embodied in the Constitution. These are the principles that are so important that we are willing to make minimal concessions to expediency.
The Self-denying ordinance to refrain from majority rule on certain kinds of issues that is embodied in our Constitution…”
One of the things I like so much about the free market is that everything is based on individual decisions, there doesn’t have to be a majority to decide what I want to support. The fewer the issues on which agreement is necessary, the greater is the likelihood of getting agreement while maintaining a free society. Since people are not perfect we need a framework of laws to protect those individual freedoms. As one Supreme Court justice put it “My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of you chin.”
As Hyrum stated we must protect human life at all costs, then he goes on to say that we must protect the family at all costs as if the two are synonymous. Of course the role of the government is to support any and all individual human freedoms (including life). What is a family? Fundamentally it is the culmination of individual choices of commitment and love. I don’t understand why this is something that the government needs to protect or promote... if it is what an individual truly wants than that is what they will do. Why should the government try and persuade people that this is the best way? If the the family unit should be protected at all costs above individual liberty than divorce should be illegal because it damages the family unit more than allowing gays to marry. Breaking it down this way shows the government protection of marriage or the family doesn't really mean anything because people will act in their own interests. Discouraging gay marriages won't really encourage anyone to be strait. It isn’t the government protection of families that has made this country great, it is the government’s support of personal freedoms that have allowed individuals to make this country great.
I also think that it’s ludicrous to think that if gays are allowed to marry that eventually churches will be forced to marry gay couples. This kind of slippery slope logic is the culmination of illogical fears. In Iran it is punishable by death to be gay. Iranian proponents claim that if people are permitted to make this choice for themselves society will deteriorate due to rampant homosexuality. It is obvious to me that for the ultimate good of society personal freedom is more important than imposed government standards of individual morality.
Sparrow, I'm a little confused on where you stand. I think the argument has progressed to the point of decided which is the appropriate vote for prop 8 - yes or no.
It is clear that you think that government should be completely separated from the institution of marriage, and to be honest I am still a little undecided on that. You certainly do make good arguments there. I still tend to side more with the argument that government should take that role in defending family structure. Your argument about making divorce illegal I think was a little off base because often divorce is in the best interest of families. Even the Law of Moses recognized that.
But that argument aside, lets assume for a minute that America is never going to accept the Ron Paul revolution, and minimize government to it's absolute smallest. Lets assume the America will stay on it's course of the solution to everything being a new law.
For example, there is a California assembly woman that is trying to pass a law that TV networks cannot broadcast commercials as a higher volume than the show. People hear it and shout for joy, as they think of that ANNOYING commercial that they have to watch time and again that is SO LOUD!
Given the situation, since the laws and precedents are in place, and built into the info-structure of our current society and government, the government does have the responsibility. People rely and trust the government to regulate and define certain things, and based on those definitions, rewards and punishments are given. Resulting policy is also formed. Government has taken it upon itself to define what a family is because the public has entrusted them with that responsibility (for better or for worse). So now I ask you, what should the government do with that responsibility?
Leave it for the judges to decide? That is what currently is happening.
Leave it for the people to decide? You seem to be contrary to both of these solutions, but I don't see the evil in allowing the latter. Shouldn't the majority decide what a family is defined as, socially as well as legally?
The question is really that simple. I know the opponents to prop 8 equate it to a lynch mob, where men gather torches and pitchforks to hunt down the homosexuals, but that is not what is happening. The point isn't to persecute the gays, or even try to convince less people to be gay (even if that was a by-product). The people have given the government the responsibility to define marriage, and the people are defining what it is.
So what happens if prop 8 fails? To me, a homosexual couple is still not a family. What happens if prop 8 passes? To a homosexual couple, they still are a family.
But, I think that it is extremely important how the government defines it. Lets be realistic - they choose our children's textbooks, decide their curriculum (including sex ed. and home skills classes), sensor our radio waves, television waves, and make policy based on what a family consists of (ie. adoptions), ect.
Like I said, for better or for worse, society has left that definition in the hands of the government. If the majority really does feel that a homosexual couple makes up a valid family, then the proposition should fail. If not, it should pass.
If it fails, I do fear for the future, though. We would be getting ever closer to Sodom and Gomorrah. - From this perspective, it really makes sense to me why the church is fighting for it, and why we are encouraged to, and should support it as well.
Good comments, Paul and Hyrum.
I wanted to add these few more comments, though at this point I may be re-hashing a bit.
I see the allowing of same-sex marriage as opening the door to more government control over the institution of marriage rather than allowing people more freedom. I think that government should leave marriage alone. However, by seeking to re-define something that most people want left alone, government is in fact attempting to force a new definition on society, on those who don't want it. This will eventually result in a limitation of personal freedom. For example, it is easy for me to see a day in the near future when people or organizations will be sued for "hate speech" by trying to say that same-sex marriage is not good. I think people have a perfect right to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, and it is wrong for government to try to take away that right.
Another example of this is what heppened in Massachusetts a year or 2 ago. The Catholic Church used to be a major player in adoption in that state, and was a valuable resource which arranged and facilitated adoptions. However, they were basically forced out of providing adoptions by the state government which said that they had to start allowing homosexual couples to adopt. Rather than go against their basic beliefs, they chose to abandon adoptions entirely, resulting in a great loss to the people of that state.
So, by seeming to allow a minority so-called greater rights and freedom, the government is in fact doing so at the expense of those who also should be allowed their freedom of speech and religion.
Also, why experiment with marriage, which is already in mortal danger from rampant divorce, sexual promiscuity, unmarried couples living together, pornography, etc.? I've heard at least one commentator say that allowing same-sex marriage could be the final nail in the coffin for traditional marriage.
Same sex marriage will also open the door to other bizarre forms of marriage, such as multiple numbers of men and women, and even people and animals. What's to stop an activist judge from allowing these once the door has been opened to this pandora's box?
Homosexuals have all the basic rights already which traditional marriage would have given them, such as partner medical and legal benefits, etc., and I am OK with many of those (except for allowing them to adopt children). The activists only want it to be called "marriage" because they are trying to normalize homosexuality and even give it a special priveleged status. It is wrong to impose this "normalization" on the rest of society, plain and simple. We have to be careful that when allowing special "rights" that in fact will cause a limitation of the basic rights and beliefs of others, especially when dealing with something as fundamental to society as marriage.
I found 2 very interesting articles on this subject today, which I would like to add. One is from the LDS church website, and the other from NPR:
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
The church article points out how the redefinition of marriage in California and Massachusetts will severely limit religious freedom and gives specific examples of how and why this will happen. The 2nd article gives a detailed list of specific instances of people and organizations which have either lost or are in the process of losing important religious freedoms, because of this issue, and in all these cases, the religious believers are on the losing side, which in itself is alarming.
Based on hard evidence such as pointed out in these 2 articles, I don't see how anyone can doubt that allowing same-sex marriage will result in a clash between "gay" rights and religious freedom, which religious freedom losing the battle. And of course, once such laws become institutionalized, they are downright impossible to repeal. It's a one way road which we shouldn't go down.
Thanks Phil, interesting articles. I imagined attacks on religion in the future due to this issue, but I didn't realize that it was happening already so much. Especially from the cases mentioned in the NPR article, it seems that "separation of church and state" is very unidirectional. The courts are so quick to stop churches from being involved in anything having to do with government, but at the same time, step in and regulate the way people choose to worship, if they are not politically correct or in line with the courts opinion. And all this from unelected judges, accountable to know one, who freely make and destroy policy at will. This is getting downright oppressive. I wonder how far it will go before people wake up and realize our freedoms are disintegrating.
Thanks Phil and Hyrum for helping me "see the light" from the standpoint that the system that we live in is not perfect so we have to make the best of it. Ideally I would like to see no government involvement in marriage, allowing everyone to define it however they want. I don't agree with the state encouraging morality. However, since we do live in this messed up system where the government does define marriage you have convinced me that it is best to keep it defined between a man and a woman. Yesterday I heard of a fertility doctor that refused to impregnate a lesbian for religious reasons but kindly referred her to another doctor. After being impregnated by the other doctor and having a baby the lesbian then sued the doctor who refused to treat her. In a unanimous decision the California Supreme Court found the doctor guilty of violating the civil rights of the lesbian. A government that will tread upon the just personal convictions of its electorate in the name of civil rights is destined for destruction. I am convinced that many of these "homosexual rights" issues are designed more to limit the freedom of heteros than grant freedoms to homos.
Post a Comment