I brought up to both Russell and Nate the question of whether the Church’s efforts on Prop-8 were related to fears about the reinstitution of polygamy. Neither thought that was a valid worry so maybe I’m simply being silly on this. It seemed (and seems) to me that if gay marriage becomes normative that within 10 years so too will the legalization and recognition of polygamy. And I think the Church is right to fear this.
Now I know that many gay marriage proponents have seen the legalization of polygamy as unlikely. Some even see it as offensive to bring up. (Which always struck me as a double standard with regards to tolerance) I think though that if we take as a fundamental right to marry whom we will then it’s difficult to say people don’t really have that right. That is limiting the number of husbands a woman has seems just as much an infringement as limiting the gender of whom that woman can marry.
Yes folks can make Utilitarian arguments for a difference. I confess I have a hard time seeing them as valid. If marriage provides stability and faithfulness for gays, surely getting polygamous marriages out of hiding and into the light is a positive matter. The main reason polygamist sects are so secretive is because of polygamy. Remove that and you mainstream them which can only be a benefit for the children. Further you stop a lot of welfare abuse.
I’m no lawyer so I won’t make any legal arguments. I’m not sure they are necessary anyway. It seems law tends to follow social trends. Once you liberalize marriage it’s pretty hard to keep limits on it. Eventually someone will find an argument for legalizing polygamy persuasive. (I tend to think that what is seen as persuasive functions a more primordial level than what is strongly reasoned so law tends to follow social change)
Which gets me to my final point. The Church has a compelling interest to stop polygamy. For one the Church doesn’t want to be confused with polygamists. Everyone remember the FLDS confusions last year? Yeah.
But it’s worse than that. If polygamy is legalized you’ll have more people trying to both associate with the polygamist groups and mainstream Mormonism. Yes the Church will, to the degree they find out, excommunicate any polygamist. But when polygamy is out of hiding and it becomes normative it simply will be more attractive to many. Most of the arguments about normalizing gay marriage apply much more to polygamy than gay marriage. Especially if you, like me, agree that homosexual attraction is for most gays not really a matter of a simple choice. Polygamy is in a way gay relations simply aren’t.
So I think the Church is right to worry about the social effects of polygamy.
Mark Brown: I’m not going to engage you in that line of thinking, because as I’ve said, SSM is not about civil rights. Period.
It’s said that “He who frames the debate, wins.” Allowing the pro-SSM side to frame the debate as a matter of civil-rights is giving into their game, and it’s a sure course for losing.
Mark B: “However, I think it is a copout for the rest of us to solve the problem by saying that gays should have no guaranteed rights whatsoever.
There you go with another cheap tactic. No one on the protect-marriage side has said that.
Mark Brown: “At will” employment has nothing to do with this. If your employer walked up to you and said that you were being fired because you believe in Mormonism, you could sue and win.
BTW, either you don’t understand “at will employment” or you are purposely misrepresenting it.
“At will employment” means an employer can fire anyone without having to give a reason.
Clark: “As I said, I don’t think that necessarily deals with the meaning of marriage.
Then why bring it up? Why use it as a point in favor of SSM?
“But let’s not kid ourselves there aren’t sincere concerns about civil rights.”
California gays already had hospital visitation rights within civil unions. So who kidded you into thinking they needed SSM in order to achieve hospital visitation rights?
Let’s turn this around: do you want millions of school children in California taught that homosexual sodomy is normal and socially accdeptable, just so a few hundred hospitalized people can be visited by their registered domestic partners?
No, wait, hospitalized patients can already be _immediately_ visited by their registered domestic partner in California.
So tell me, WHY exactly do you want millions of school children taught that homosexual sodomy is normal and socially acceptable?
And, after 10 or 12 years of teaching school children that homosexual sodomy is normal and socially acceptable, (and factor that in with our society’s current belief that sex outside of any kind of marriage is peachy-keen A-OK), do you honestly think that homosexual sex experimentation among teens won’t skyrocket? After all, it will have been presented to them by their authority figures as being “normal” and “acceptable.”
Bookslinger,
I apologize if I have misunderstood your position. As I stated, I didn’t understand what you meant so I was asking questions, trying to understand.
I agree that it is obviously fruitless for us to attempt to engage on this topic.
Bookslinger,
(Treading very lightly, so as not to be accused of engaging in cheap tactics or misrepresenting you) Do you think it is a good thing that gay people in California have hospital visitation rights? Should we attempt to repeal that?
A simple yes or no answer will do.
Mark Brown:
The debate over Prop-8 isn’t about hospital visitation rights in California. So why did Clark (and then you) bring it up?
I think he brought it up because he (along with you) has been hoodwinked into thinking the SSM issue is about civil rights and visiting one’s domestic partner when they’re in a coma in a hospital.
But registered domestic partners already have that right in California.
So please tell me, why do YOU think California school children should be taught that homosexual sodomy is normal and socially acceptable?
And, if that were taught to your children in your school district, would you attempt to counter that teaching in your home?
Would you teach your children that homosexual behavior, even within a homosexual marriage, was a sin?
And, if SSM were legalized in your state, would you be comfortable with the idea that one of your children entered into a same-sex marriage? After all, it would be legal, and socially acceptable.
Would you feel better knowing that he/she did not engage in any form of sexual contact until _after_ entering into a same-sex marriage? “Don’t worry Dad, we didn’t ‘do it’ until after we were married”.
And, in 15 or so years, after all the social stigma is removed, homosexual behavior will be a legitimate choice and option for sexual outlet, since there won’t be anything socially or culturally wrong with it.
So, would you feel any different if your child told you they _chose_ homosexuality (as opposed to deciding/realizing they were born that way) ?
“Hey dad, get with the times, homosexual, heterosexual, there’s no difference, it’s all legal, it’s all cool, so quit discriminating.”
“But son, homosexuality isn’t chosen. Homosexuals are born that way.”
[Rolls eyes.] “Get with the times, old man. That thinking is so old-fashioned. This is the 2020′s. You’re living back in 2000. People can be whatever they want. Wasn’t it YOUR father/grandfather who said back in the 1960′s ‘Do your own thing.’?”
Mark, you and many others seem to have no idea as to what is behind the door you want to open.
Bookslinger,
A minor parenthetical threadjack about “employment at will”–the “employment at will” doctrine does not protect an employer who fires an employee on account of their sex, race, national origin or religion. “Employment at will” is a state law doctrine, and federal protections against employment discrimination override state law “at will” rules to the contrary. And, in any event, most, if not all, states with employment at will have statutory exceptions providing that the doctrine does not protect against discrimination claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment Some of those states provide that discrimination on account of sexual orientation is forbidden (even in an employment at will situation), some (most I think) do not protect against discrimination on account of sexual orientation.
************
Comment regarding polyamory–I am trying to follow how the California decision would lead to legalization of plural spouse marriage: let me see if I can structure it–1. the California court held that discrimination on account of sexual orientation is prohibited by the state constitution, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and therefore same sex unions must be sanctioned as “marriages”,
2. polyamory (as distinct for a “one partner sexual orientation”) is a “sexual orientation”, therefore,
3. polyamorous relationships should be sanctioned as “marriages.”
DavidH: I understand the nuances you pointed out in regards to employement-at-will. And thanks for the wiki link. The net-effect in real life is that reasons for firing don’t really have to be given under employment-at-will, and when needed, reasons can be contrived. Ask anyone who feels they’ve been fired unfairly.
Re: polyamory, given the historical trent to expand the definitions of protected classes, and expand the definition of marriage, your reasoning seems a likely scenario of what could happen.
Another line of reasoning is that the courts have established a precedent of “marriage means/includes whatever we say it means/includes.”
This morphing of definitions of what is culturally acceptable harkens to the central theme that I’ve harped on: We’ve arrived at this point through a 40 year (at least) cultural process, therefore it is illogical to assume the process is going to end with the step currently under debate. So, what is this cultural process, and where is it headed?
What have been the fruits/results of this process of “sexual revolution” so far?
Who would have thought, in the summer of 1969, that “free love” was going to lead to government-recognized same sex marriages? Yet, this is _exactly_ where it has led. SSM is a _direct_ consequence.
By the way, how do you feel about teaching ____________ (I’m tired of typing it) as normal and socially acceptable to grade-school children?
Bookslinger,
You are a good man, and I don’t want to argue with you. And there is no point in arguing hypotheticals anyway.
I will just point out that you have taken a position that is in opposition to the church, which has said that it does not oppose hospital visitation and the other rights gay people in California now enjoy.
Wow. Lots of comments. I’m sending this from my iPhone (I’m in Burley for Thanksgiving). So I apologize in advance for typos.
Bookslinger (#54), the issue of Prop-8 and gay marriage in California simply is not seen as merely a California only issue. Now you can dispute that and say that it should be. Yet clearly Mormons don’t see it that way (thus the worry from outside of the state) and gays from outside of California don’t either. So saying my point is irrelevant missing that as a civil rights issue the issue of legalized marriage is for gays a big issue as it will help them gain civil rights in places they simply aren’t granted it.
As to the issue of teaching in school I think despite Blake’s defenses I see this as largely a red herring. I just can’t see it being taught in any substantial form. Further I can approach the issue the same way you do. In some places (i.e. the Bay area) it is already taught. So how exactly does having gay marriage deal with teaching when it is already taught? What gets taught is largely an issue of school boards and frankly you already lost the debate with school boards. Sorry mate.
I also think it naive to assume kids aren’t going to learn about homosexuality in school. You should already be preparing them and countering false ideas in your home. It’s an important duty for all parents to teach sexuality issues before the kids encounter them. And frankly kids encounter them early. Realize that in the typical classroom you’ll have kids who have been sexually abused. You’ll have kids who do have parents or siblings who are gay. Pretending we can just brush things aside or that what the teacher says is the only encounter kids have is unwise to say the least.
I do think that as we teach our children we have to be loving to our brothers and sisters who struggle with these issues and not demonize them. Just as we can’t demonize the people who engage in the now rather common lifestyle of living with each other before marriage. Yes we have to say premarital sex of any sort is wrong. But demonizing or not providing the decency of rights is important.
Bookslinger, regarding “free love”, I think lots of people then thought homosexual marriages would eventually come. Others thought marriage as a whole would be destroyed yet the unintended consequences of the overreach of the counterculture movement (especially AIDS) led people to realize why marriage was so important. Which is why gays want it (whereas as many noted at one time it was common for gays to disparage marriage)
For any choice there will always be unintended consequences. And many ideologies create utopian schemes where rather obvious consequences are denied. I don’t think anyone would doubt that was true of the couter-culture movement of the 60′s and early 70′s.
I would note that for all it’s negative aspects there were positive aspects to the counterculture movement with respect to sexuality. I think it led to getting rid of the taboos of speaking about sex. I think that then getting some issues out in the open was important and led to better intimacy between couples. It also led to focusing in on sexual abuse and getting that into the open. While we’re far from solving sexual abuse I think the focus on it the past 20 years and taking it out of repression is unarguably a good thing.
If you buy that sexual orientation in terms of desire isn’t open to a simple choice then I think getting the issue of homosexuality out in the open is also important. I think it brings a psychological good. Now to the degree that homosexual acts are wrong (since marriage in LDS theology is only for heterosexual unions) there is a huge problem. I certainly don’t know the answer to that. It’s above my paygrade. I’ll leave that one to the prophet and God and simply trust in what they request us to do.
Mark, I don’t believe that I said that I oppose hospital visitation. You may have incorrectly inferred that.
Clark, there’s a difference between teaching about homosexuality in the classroom as part of a sexual education curriculum, and teaching homosexuality as normalized by portraying everyday homosexuals in other curricula. I’ve discussed what I think will happen in other recent theads on M*.
And yes, I’m aware of the difference between a) what kids pick up from other kids, b) what kids get in formal instruction in sex-ed, and c) what kids get from the examples set before them in the narratives of various curricula.
The bottom line is that there are several other origins of homosexuality other than it being in-born. I’m not saying it is universally or consciously chosen either. “Born gay” homosexuals are likely the minority. A recent FMH post had interesting comments about a spectrum of “hard coding” to “soft coding” in terms of sexual orientation. Many psychologists, most over the age of say 55, still recognize certain things of childhood development and family relations as having a strong influence on sexual orientation.
Older psychologists/psychiatrists (and many of the conservative ones employed by LDS Family Services) often concur that homosexuals can be made.
Childhood sexual abuse (by a same-sex adult) also is a big factor of influence. Personally, I’ve known young men who were targeted and steered/groomed into homosexuality by older homosexual men.
SSM’s net effect that I predict will be an explosion (a tripling or a doubling at least) of the percentage of people who self-identify as homosexuals in 11 to 15 years. Key to that are three things: 1) sexual orientation is not universally entirely in-born; for some it can be influenced and for some it can be chosen; 2) when all social taboo is removed, many people of a future generation will consider homosexuality as an option for exploration/experimentation; 3) first-time sexual experiences are already known to have a huge influence on a person’s sexuality, therefore those who are unfortunate to choose or be led into homosexual sexual experimentation will have a much higher rate of self-identifying as homosexual.
Clark: “So saying my point is irrelevant missing that as a civil rights issue the issue of legalized marriage is for gays a big issue as it will help them gain civil rights in places they simply aren’t granted it.”
The following 2 facts seems to disprove your statement:
1. Gays are demanding SSM in a state (CA) where they already had all the civil rights they asked for guaranteed them via civil unions.
2. Only a very small percentage of gays actually entered, or wanted to personally enter, into civil unions.
I still contend that the real issue is about gaining approval, and making homosexuality be seen by a future generation as an option that can be legitimately chosen. The idea that homosexuality is universally and exclusively in-born is one of the big lies of this generation.
And that thing about liberal cities already having pro-gay curricula, with SSM, they will be able to use the power of the state eduction department to force the pro-gay curricula into all school districts.
Yes, individual books are still up to the local board, but the state is able to enforce over-arching guidelines which all locally-approved curricula must meet.
I don’t see how that invalidates my point if the issue is national rights and not just state rights.
To add, someone need not take advantage of a civil right in order to see it as bad that they are denied that right.
Note I never said it was necessarily “born in” (although I personally believe in many that’s the case – it’d be surprising were humans the only species without that). I merely said it wasn’t a matter of a simple choice. Which I think is independent of the nature/nuture issue. Lots of things can happen to develop a brain state in which one is not free to choose. I’d note that I don’t particularly think I choose my own base sexuality regardless of whether that is due to nature of nurture. So the nature/nurture issue is ultimately beside the point.