Discussing Marriage has posted a summary of all of the arguments on their site, in their newest (and likely final) installment: Why Should We Support Traditional Marriage? Eight Reasons to Support Traditional Marriage, with Answers to Your Questions
If you share anything from the Discussing Marriage project, let this be the article. Given the Supreme Court ruling that is expected later this month, we encourage all of our readers to share this article on social media, and to invite their friends to share it too.
Many thanks!
New Post: Discussing Marriage: Why Should We Support Traditional Marriage?: Discussing Marriage h… http://t.co/eK9wDq5Hvc #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: Discussing Marriage: Why Should We Support Traditional Marriage? http://t.co/YJBht6Eqvq #lds #mormon
It is an excellent article. Sadly, I do not believe it will convince many people. Why not? Because this has become an emotional issue, rather than one to consider logic and reasoning along with emotion. It is easier to use ad hominem attacks than to actually discuss the issues.
Compared with the French Revolution, we can see that the media has used emotional issues to quickly and violently overwhelm tradition and logic. We see, as they did back then, that even moderate positions were eventually swept aside by the mobocracy that ruled. We are not executing dissenters. Yet. But society is putting them in a very uncomfortable place.
To a person who is born gay and told he cannot marry the person he is attracted to and solely with whom he can form that lifelong bond of commitment, fidelity, mutual support, and total love, whereas such marriage is a civil right — indeed a fundamental right existing outside of all positive legal theories — for a person born straight, is that not similar to executing him? Is that not the reason for the epidemic of gay suicides that we have among our teenagers and young adults?
As to this being an emotional issue in addition to being an equal protection issue in our constitutional order, that is correct. It is fraught with the emotions of a tiny minority of people who have been very badly mistreated for decades and even hundreds of years. Is it any wonder that LGBT people are up in arms, so to speak, on these issues in the United States, given that until only a few years ago they were not protected against discrimination in virtually all aspects of society, including they employment and housing, and we religious people were all too willing and happy to discriminate against them in the absence of such protections? This seems like a natural consequence of our actions, does it not? We need to be accountable for our actions, for how we collectively have treated them.
“To a person who is born autistic and told she cannot marry, cannot form that lifelong bond of commitment, fidelity, mutual support, and total love, whereas such marriage is a civil right — indeed a fundamental right existing outside of all positive legal theories — for a neurologically-typical person, is that not similar to executing her? Is that not reason for impaired people’s to commence an epidemic of suicide?”
Wrested the quote a bit to demonstrate the fallacy of the logic.
There are times when certain populations begin to feel that suicide is an acceptable alternative. There is a high school in my area where being a young athlete is highly correlated with suicide, for example.
Personally, a reason I will likely not ever be found intentionally dead by my own machinations is that I believe in a God who has indicated He will be very pissed if I show up before my time. Sorry if pissed is too strong a term, but I can’t think of another word in English that conveys the sharp disapproval I have reason to know He would feel if I were to intentionally hasten my demise.
What is being sought is not the acknowledgment of a civil right to marry, but instead a civil right to enter into whatever relationship one desires and to call that relationship a marriage.
You may as well call a snowman “Parson Brown” and insist that the ceremony he conducts be called a marriage.
I think the article is incompatible with Church doctrine. First, the statement that marriage is about procreation ignores the fact that, from a Church standpoint, it is mostly about making sex acceptable and allowing the accompanying intimacy to prepare us for the next life. After all, there are many acts that do not lead to pregnancy but will result in disciplinary action when performed by unmarried members of the Church. Also, childless couples do not face Church sanction. The website does deal with the question of childless couples, although mostly from the standpoint of involuntary infertility, not from the standpoint of those who simply choose not to have children. Second, if children have a right to their biological parents, why has the Church encouraged single mothers to give up their children for adoption (and the Church has historically pushed this very hard).
The most persuasive argument, to me, is that of the danger to religious liberty. However, churches in the United States already have constitutional protections for their actions. While no one can guarantee that those constitutional protections will be upheld, it seems likely as long as a significant part of the population embraces them.
“While no one can guarantee that those constitutional protections will be upheld, it seems likely as long as a significant part of the population embraces them.”
And time and again it has been proven that freedom of religion on this issue has proven to be a farce. The pro “gay marriage” activists keep moving the goalposts. First, it was they wanted to not be prosecuted (fair enough), then they wanted to have legal recognitions of certain rights that any person can get single, then they wanted Civil Unions that at least recognized separation of Church and State from a definitional standpoint, then they wanted the very name of Marriage with the same privileges as any married couple, and now they are prosecuting those who disagree with them with crushing financial punishment because a person doesn’t want to make them a freaking pastry. The chance they will leave religions alone is in the negatives as the activists are already attacking institutions who disagree with them by sending shock troops inside those organizations to disrupt their very foundations. How in the world can a logical person (especially those not beholden to the gay agenda) not see how freedom of religion is in danger from them?
Trying to reconcile this statement from thew Deseret News in 1877.
“By showing no preference for a particular form of marriage in its laws, government would be ‘more complete and glorious…[permitting] the widest diversity in…social habits, as well as in religious faith.”
Maybe the widest diversity in social habits is no longer desirable?
“Maybe the widest diversity in social habits is no longer desirable?”
Maybe. Times do change and so does understanding and historical context. It would now seem the better alternative is not to have government involvement in marriage at all, period.
Hasn’t marriage itself always been a political and economical function, used to create familiar bonds for political or economic alliances? The government was involved from the beginning to settle property disputes, etc. I think to cut them out of the picture would be untraditional.
First, the statement that marriage is about procreation ignores the fact that, from a Church standpoint, it is mostly about making sex acceptable and allowing the accompanying intimacy to prepare us for the next life.
Um… ok? No, not true. (1) We’re talking about *civil* marriage. Religious traditions can overlay additional implications and purposes of marriage. (2) This is actually a false understanding of marriage, even from an LDS point of view. Even in the sealing ordinance, the command is to multiply and the promised blessing is posterity. Further, Elder Oaks recently said:
So even he thinks that removing procreation as the unifying good of marriage in the eyes of the public and public policy is a bad idea.
Also, childless couples do not face Church sanction.
Sure. But the Church nonetheless strongly encourages couples who *can* have children to do so. And the Church strongly discourages couples from remaining *voluntarily* childless, absent strong overriding reasons. “Multiply and replenish” remains in force. You know that, and I know that. So the fact that the Church doesn’t discipline those who willfully remain childless is a moot point: the Church doesn’t discipline those who don’t do their home teaching either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a commandment.
Second, if children have a right to their biological parents, why has the Church encouraged single mothers to give up their children for adoption (and the Church has historically pushed this very hard).
There’s a lot of good, better, best situations in the world. It is good for a child to be raised by their own mother. Perhaps it’s “better” for a child to be raised by a loving father and mother. But the “best” is, undeniably, for a child to be raised by loving, biological parents.
However, churches in the United States already have constitutional protections for their actions.
Sure, but Church affiliated *institutions* do not (such as BYU or other Church owned organizations). Look up the Bob Jones University supreme court case for an example.
You cannot remove government from marriage at the front end unless you are willing to remove it from the back. This means government would have to leave individuals the ability to insist on men not using, abusing, and otherwise trampling on women and their children. It’s important to understand that this is what it means to get government out of the marriage business: giving ‘the people’ the ability to enforce marriage norms of permanence, fidelity, etc. for the benefit of the children, and the women who bear them. That means all alimony issues, custody battles, domestic battles, abortions etc. etc. would be taken on by ‘the people’ without government interference or any legal norms governing such.
First, the statement that marriage is about procreation ignores the fact that, from a Church standpoint, it is mostly about making sex acceptable and allowing the accompanying intimacy to prepare us for the next life.
Also, I’d love for you to find a source for this, if you continue to insist. While these are certainly two things that are associated with civil marriage, I’ve seen nothing in LDS materials to suggest that they are the primary functions of civil marriage, or even of marriage generally.
That means all alimony issues, custody battles, domestic battles, abortions etc. etc. would be taken on by ‘the people’ without government interference or any legal norms governing such.
I don’t even know what this means. Does this mean that a woman cannot lay a claim on the father of her children in court? Because if she can, then the government is involved. If she cannot, then she’s left without recourse.
I am confused by what Lucinda means as well. My best guess is that she is arguing that the legal issues will become a lot more messy since there isn’t a “one size fits all” solution that to me is causing the problems in the first place.
By the way, we are living in an era where couples living together and having children outside of legal marriage is easy enough to see what happens. Essentially, not much different other than perhaps a few more social problems.
Back when sociologists were able to present research without fear of losing their jobs, British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
Doesn’t anyone care about the decline of our civilization?
“By the way, we are living in an era where couples living together and having children outside of legal marriage is easy enough to see what happens. Essentially, not much different other than perhaps a few more social problems.”
This is contradicted by substantial evidence. I invite you to find a copy of Charles Murray’s Coming Apart and see what it has to say on this topic.
Kent, I am talking about LEGAL differences and there isn’t much of a change; not currently at any rate. A society that values marriage as a man and woman will always be better off even without recognition by the government of that union.
ldsphilosopher,
It is clear that the Church does not reserve marriage for those who are capable of procreating. Single persons who are too old to have children are, nonetheless, encouraged to be sealed. Why would we do this if having children were the reason for marriage? The main purpose of marriage has to be the eternal aspect. I also mentioned the likelihood of disciplinary action for acts that cannot result in pregnancy. Again, it is clear that having children is not the issue. Marriage, within the Church, allows for the proper expression of sexuality.
I cannot fully explain the wording of the sealing ceremony. However, the covenant is made even by those who are incapable of fulfilling it, at least in this life. It seems to be of eternal importance that goes beyond temporal meaning. I know the wording is different when the ordinance is performed for the dead. Like I said, I cannot fully explain it, but I don’t think it is my job to do so.
Jettboy,
I know about the cake-baking issues. However, the Church has embraced legislation that we provide the same services for same-sex couples as we do for heterosexual couples. So, it appears that our Church leaders do not think that baking a cake is a significant obstacle to our religious freedom.
“I know the wording is different when the ordinance is performed for the dead.”
I guess I consider this more significant than you do.
“So, it appears that our Church leaders do not think that baking a cake is a significant obstacle to our religious freedom.”
That’s reading a lot more into the Church’s position that is warranted.
It is clear that the Church does not reserve marriage for those who are capable of procreating.
I never said it did. But it’s also clear that it sees procreation as an intrinsic feature of marriage as a *civil* institution. Check out the official statements of the Church, for example: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
I also mentioned the likelihood of disciplinary action for acts that cannot result in pregnancy.
And so? How does this prove that procreation isn’t an intrinsic part of marriage as a civil institution?
Marriage, within the Church, allows for the proper expression of sexuality.
Yes, but even the Church itself says that this isn’t is sole or primary function as a civil institution.
However, the Church has embraced legislation that we provide the same services for same-sex couples as we do for heterosexual couples.
The Church has not yet endorsed a single law that would force bakers to bake cakes for same-sex weddings. It supported non-discrimination laws in the realm of employment and housing, but it notably did not support a similar law in the realm of public accommodations (where wedding vendors would be affected). There is evidence that this is because they could not reach a compromise that would actually protect wedding vendors, so they tabled the discussion for a later time.
Sorry, you don’t seem to actually understand the Church’s actual positions on many of these issues.
Here, in fact, is a statement from the Church that almost precisely matches the rhetoric in the OP:
“From the beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation. After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,”[3] and they brought forth children, forming the first family. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation—to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world—is divinely given. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family.[4] …
“Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized marriage as essential in preserving social stability and perpetuating life. Regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, in almost every culture marriage has been protected and endorsed by governments primarily to preserve and foster the institution most central to rearing children and teaching them the moral values that undergird civilization.
“It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility. The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations.”
The issue is not marriage per se, but the implicit compromise to God’s immutable standard of chastity that applies to everyone. Experiencing feelings of attraction are not sinful, unless they lead to expression and acts that violate God’s commandments.
And it is problematic that the foundational rationale for same-sex “marriage” is so specious. We are not normally compelled to declare ourselves “married” to anyone or anything we have strong feelings for. Why homosexuals are driven by any particularly stronger feelings than anyone else remains to be demonstrated.
The whole understanding of what constitutes “love” is jeopardized by the counterfeit definition being used to justify the trendy ambiguous redefinition of “marriage”.
Jeff T. said, “The Church has not yet endorsed a single law that would force bakers to bake cakes for same-sex weddings. It supported non-discrimination laws in the realm of employment and housing, but it notably did not support a similar law in the realm of public accommodations (where wedding vendors would be affected). There is evidence that this is because they could not reach a compromise that would actually protect wedding vendors, so they tabled the discussion for a later time.”
Thank you for clarifying the law for me. However, do you honestly believe that being forced to rent my property to a same-sex couple is less intrusive to my religious liberty than being required to bake a cake for them? Do you think that being required to hire a qualified, practicing homosexual to represent me in my business is less onerous than providing a one-time service? I respectfully disagree, if you do. I think the direction the Church wants us to go is clear from the legislation it is supporting.
In any case, thank you for the stimulating conversation.
Jeff T. said, “I also mentioned the likelihood of disciplinary action for acts that cannot result in pregnancy.
And so? How does this prove that procreation isn’t an intrinsic part of marriage as a civil institution?”
Procreation cannot be an *intrinsic* part of marriage if it is not a part of every marriage. The point of my comment is that it is sexual activity that distinguishes marriage from non-marriage within the Church, not procreation.
Again, thank you.
DD: Procreation cannot be an *intrinsic* part of marriage if it is not a part of every marriage. The point of my comment is that it is sexual activity that distinguishes marriage from non-marriage within the Church, not procreation.
Actually, yes it can. The pursuit of knowledge is an intrinsic part of the scientific method, but some scientists never actually discover anything new or useful. Learning is an intrinsic part of educational institutions, but some students glide through without learning a thing. The pursuit of game is an intrinsic part of hunting, even if hunters come home empty handed. Something can be an intrinsic part of a social institution or practice, even if not all participants in the institution obtain that end.
We’re talking about social institutions here. Is love an intrinsic part of marriage? By your logic, it can’t be, because some spouses don’t love each other. To say that the only social purpose that marriage serves is to legitimize sex is wrong, and the Church disagrees with you. I’ve posted several quotes form the Church. I’ll post one again:
“It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility. The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations.”
So you may disagree with the Church about the primary purpose of civil marriage. But don’t go around and say that our position contradicts the Church’s.
DD: However, do you honestly believe that being forced to rent my property to a same-sex couple is less intrusive to my religious liberty than being required to bake a cake for them?
Actually, yes. Well, a couple things: (1) The Church fought for exceptions for small landlords who would be in close proximity to the renters, in order to preserve the ability of ordinary people to choose who they rent their basement to. So the Church does not support a carte blanch anti-discrimination regime that forces people to let gay couples sleep in their basements. (2) Providing housing for a gay couple is not the same thing as celebrating their marriage. You know that, I know that. So stop making them out to be the same.
DD: Do you think that being required to hire a qualified, practicing homosexual to represent me in my business is less onerous than providing a one-time service?
It’s less onerous them making me lend my art and craft to celebrate their union, yes. There are distinctions here. Discernment is about the ability to see relevant distinctions. Is that something you can do? Let me spell it out for you:
We’ll love gay people. We’ll feed them. We’ll work side by side with them. We’ll provide housing for them. But we don’t want to celebrate their sexual union with them. (And yes, a wedding with all of its trappings is in part a celebration of their sexual union.) That’s the distinction. Please stop blending it all in together.
Also, the Church also — in the name of protecting religious liberty — ensured that exceptions were crafted into the law for small business owners and non-profit organizations. So again, it’s not a carte-blanche.
DD: I think the direction the Church wants us to go is clear from the legislation it is supporting.
Actually, as described above, it’s not clear at all that the Church wants wedding vendors to celebrate gay weddings. Suggestion: Quit trying to tell people what the Church’s positions are. Every time you have in this thread, you’ve gotten the Church’s positions wrong. If you go back and watch Elder Oaks, Elder Holland, Elder Christofferson, etc., they’re very clear that store owners should not have to sell products that violate their conscience. It’s not all clear (as you say) that this doesn’t apply to wedding vendors celebrating same-sex unions with their art and craft.
The point of my comment is that it is sexual activity that distinguishes marriage from non-marriage within the Church, not procreation.
If this were true, the Church would have no qualms with marriage between any two sexual partners. Clearly, it’s not true.
Since there was confusion about my comment, I’d like to say I prefer government to have reasonable laws surrounding marriage. We don’t have that anymore, and it has already really messed up the situation. But husbands, fathers, and brothers (and others) face serious legal penalty if they so much as stand up to those who deliberately inflict hardship on children and women. This is really at the heart of the same-sex marriage debate, the desire of some to remove even the basic protections of children, to complete the removal of any expectation that men help women in bringing children into the world. Under this new norm, children can be legitimately bought and sold in the booming fertility industry, but not legitimately protected in their right to “birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”
Individuals who express conscientious disapproval of ripping apart basic rights for children and women as mothers are punished under this new norm. And this for no violence, but merely saying no to providing a service. There will be no rectification until the real men are willing to defy the ‘consensus’, and the government, and be like Moroni: “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”
At this point the established order is beyond repair. The government has failed to protect marriage, yet insists on husbands and fathers going along with the chaos it has created in their families. It remains to be seen whether men will stand up and be men, or if they will stand by and watch their homes, wives, and children continue to be violated by those set on destroying them by enforcing corrupt government standards.
@ Trond:
Let us assume, for a moment, that there really is an “epidemic” of gay suicides in the Church now, that didn’t exist twenty or thirty years ago.
Is that epidemic directly attributable to the Church, whose doctrine and discourse has only become (slightly) softer in that time period? Or is it directly attributable to social progressives, who insist with increasing shrillness that the unlaid life is not worth living?
I’ve noticed a number of businesses explicitly featuring gay/lesbian couples in traditional heart-warming situations, such as adopting a disabled child or spending a weekend at a hotel with their new adoptive children. I am also seeing more overtly positive announcements of LGBT groups and seminars, much as one in the past saw Women in Government seminars or Blacks in Government events.
From the standpoint of those I know who are LGBT and don’t adhere to any ideology that informs them to behave against their inclinations, I can appreciate how such ads and events let them know they are safe and appreciated. It helps them know which businesses seek their business, and allows them (if they choose) to begin forming habits of association with and loyalty to such vendors.
Governments are following suit. And as the world perceives there to be great pressure on resources, decline is not necessarily seen as a problem, but a sought solution. In fact, Kingsman explicitly focused on a rich individual who planned to kill most of humanity to save the planet. Many other popular films have focused on this idea of overpopulation, or humanity in a post-apocalyptic world, or humanity as a resource some external entitity plans to harvest when we are ripe.
This perception that the world is inadequate to sustain a growing population is contributing to a devaluation of live across the board. And thus devaluing the life and rights of children is part and parcel of a larger phenomenon, which includes mandatory sterilization of individuals (allegedly performed in some other western countries with socialized medicine after a 2nd or 3rd child), prevention/murder of additional children (e.g., China), celebration of arranging one’s own death under the guise of retaining dignity, the similar movement towards hastening the death of others for convenience or self-assigned “mercy,” etc.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been personally affected by each of the above, so I am not just making things up to be alarmist.
Of all the many things contributing to a likely decline, at least same sex marriage has a face that appears to be happy. The rest are pretty morbid and somewhat harder to “feel good” about, honestly.
There is a lesson I take from the Book of Mormon that I don’t hear elsewhere. The lesson comes from the epistles Mormon writes to Moroni, indicating that these two letters were written without a span of no more than a few decades. In the first, Mormon writes to clarify a rather minor point of doctrine, regarding whether infants should be baptized. Mormon condemns the practice of bapitizing infants as heretical, but this is truly a relatively minor doctrinal point, in light of the second letter. In the next letter, we hear of massive societal disintegration, including rape, murder, cannibalism, and genocide. The lesson I take is that things can go from perplexing to horrific in a much shorter time than most would consider reasonable.
So I project that the attempt to champion traditional marriage will not impact the global trend as much as we might hope, given that the global trend regarding marriage is merely a single aspect of a much larger trend related to perception of scarcity coupled with selfish ignorance. On the other hand, we can help those individuals around us make improved choices that will bless them.
ldsphilosopher said, “The pursuit of knowledge is an intrinsic part of the scientific method, but some scientists never actually discover anything new or useful. Learning is an intrinsic part of educational institutions, but some students glide through without learning a thing. The pursuit of game is an intrinsic part of hunting, even if hunters come home empty handed.”
Please note your use of the word “pursuit.” It is different from “achievement.” However, the even the pursuit of procreation cannot a part of every marriage. The analogy falls apart.
I stand corrected for my conflation. I should not have confused the two issues. Let me get back to my original point. Regardless of anti-discrimination laws, it would be nearly impossible for the Church to be legally pressured to accept homosexual unions or to relinquish its teachings on the sinfulness of homosexual activity because of the 1st Amendment. Issues may arise of the periphery, but our beliefs are not going to be changed, just challenged.
ldsphilosopher said, “The point of my comment is that it is sexual activity that distinguishes marriage from non-marriage within the Church, not procreation.
If this were true, the Church would have no qualms with marriage between any two sexual partners. Clearly, it’s not true.”
This is a non sequitur. I am sure I am on very solid ground asserting that the Church clearly teaches that marriage is a necessary condition for the permissibility of sexual activity. However, it is not a sufficient condition. The Church clearly has other criteria for what activity is acceptable for a Church member.
My point here is that gospel teachings clearly draw a line well before procreation for acts that are acceptable outside of marriage. Saying that procreation is what distinguishes marriage from other relationships leads, possibly far down the road, to a watering down of the law of chastity, in my opinion.
DD: I am sure I am on very solid ground asserting that the Church clearly teaches that marriage is a necessary condition for the permissibility of sexual activity.
This ABSOLUTELY true. And completely besides the point. Nobody’s saying that this isn’t true. We’re just saying that this isn’t the primary purpose of civil marriage, even from the Church’s point of view. Need I quote the Church again? The Church has SAID that procreation is an intrinsic part of civil marriage.
We’re not saying that non-procreative sex is morally permissible outside of marriage. We’re not saying that procreation is the ONLY purpose of marriage. We’re saying that procreation is an intrinsic part of civil marriage as a civil institution, and even the CHURCH says so.
Quit trying to tell us that we are contradicting the Church and its teachings. We’re QUOTING the Church and its teachings.
DD, I think I know where the confusion is coming from. Let me see if I can clear it up using a different analogy.
Imagine that I said, “The pursuit of learning is an intrinsic part of school institutions. Absent the pursuit of learning, school isn’t school — it’s daycare instead.” In short, imagine that I’m saying that the crucial difference between school (as a social institution) and other things (such as daycare or sports clubs) is that unlike the others, school has learning as its coordinating good, while the others do not. That is, if we started a “school” that has no connection to learning (or the forms of learning), we couldn’t properly call it “school” anymore.
Now, imagine that someone came along and said, “That can’t be right. Many students attend school for other reasons than learning. Some attend because their parents send them there for daycare. Some attend because that’s where their friends are. The pursuit of learning can’t be the distinguishing factor between school and other social institutions.” The problem with that objection is that I’m not talking about individual students. Each student can have all their own reasons for attending school, and that doesn’t change what makes the institution school instead of non-school. In short, I’m not talking about what distinguishes students from non-students, I’m talking about what distinguishes school from non-school.
In a similar way, I’m not talking about what makes individual couples married or non-married. I’m not saying, “Procreation is the distinguishing feature that makes this couple married, and this other couple not married.” No, I’m talking about marriage as a broad, social institution. The pursuit (or possibility of) procreation is what distinguishes marriage from non-marriage (broadly speaking), just as the pursuit of learning is what distinguishes school from non-school (broadly speaking). This is true even if some/many married couples don’t procreate, or many students don’t care to learn.
Jeff T.,
I prefer that analogy. I’m not sure that I find it convincing, but it makes more sense to me. Thank you for taking the time to explain your position.
Let me say that I am very much in sympathy with the arguments in the original post and with the Church’s Proclamation on the Family. I wish to add just a few thoughts to the discussion.
One non-religious as well as religious reason to support the unique institution of heterosexual marriage is that can facilitate the protection of women in their inherently asymmetric relations with men in ways that degendered marriage cannot. In other words, marriage should be not only about protecting children, but also about protecting women whether they have children or not. Only women may potentially become pregnant, whether they actually do so or not. Women have inherently different biological clocks than men, whether they actually become pregnant or not. A woman can say she gave the best years of her life to her spouse in ways that a man cannot. A man in his forties or fifties or older will find it easier to remarry than would a woman of the same age. The law, therefore, should recognize gender in marriage, whether children are present or not. One implication of this is that marriage should not be so easily dissolved as it is now.
There could, of course, be many alternative institutions devised for uniting the sexes to both bear children and protect women (think Brave New World), but nothing yet devised has a better outlook or historical track record than heterosexual marriage, despite its experienced imperfections on the individual level.
Another reason is that redefining traditional marriage threatens the two institutions most capable of standing up to an all-powerful state: the churches and the naturally self-sustaining extended family. There is little doubt in my mind that if enshrined in law redefined and genderless marriage will be used as a battering ram against both institutions both legally and culturally as law in general is in part designed to educate and establish enforced cultural norms.
Finally, Latter-day Saints and others with similar views on marriage must be prepared to face the very real possibility that the courts and the outside culture will get this wrong, as has already happened in many jurisdictions already, no matter how logical, irenic, and winsome our appeals may be. The courts and the larger culture, of course, are not the ultimate authorities on right or wrong. LDS faith and culture in America may have to become more countercultural to defend and build Zion.
Discussing Marriage puts up a noble effort to couch the arguments in secular terms, and certainly brings up some good points. The problem is that they are complicated points, somewhat difficult to articulate and thus harder to internalise than traditional religious arguments which focus on deeply held beliefs about the proper use of sexuality. The traditional religious arguments are much easier: “Homosexuality is wrong. Traditional marriage is ordained of God.” But this opens us up much more easily to accusations of bigotry and intolerance. So Discussing Marriage is on the right track. The battle is practically over anyway, and what will be left is trying to protect religious liberties, so the focus going forward will have to be focused on why cake bakers are not bigots. Can these same arguments be used in that battle?
Non-Mormon reader here. Interesting discussion. I can’t say that I agree with all the points made by Discussing Marriage, but I’m sympathetic to the idea that at least discussing differences of belief and approach can be productive and helpful for mutual tolerance.
Meg Stout’s comment of June 10 at 7:35 pm surprised me a little bit. I’m just hoping that the view that we are just decades away from cannibalism and genocide is not widespread among Mormons. I’m not familiar with the passage, but does the Book of Mormon teach that this is the inevitable result of not following God?
Hi Joey Di,
As I mentioned, my interpretation is not commonly discussed, and I may be the only one who derives this understanding from these concluding chapters of the Book of Mormon.
That said, the way ISIS is treating those with whom they don’t agree is far from the relative civility in that region of the world prior to the mid 1970s.
I do think that D&C 45 and Jacob 5 are each generally interpreted to speak of an eventual time when God will call an end to this venue as having become unproductive to His purpose. This is similar to the common understanding of the Rapture that is discussed amongst evangelicals. I think among some atheists there is also a fatalistic belief that the world will come to an end due to someone launching nuclear weapons, or some other horrific catastrophe. The Bible definitely supports a reading that an end of times will come.
There has also been a long tradition of people believing that good people protect the nations where they live or the vessels in which they travel. The Biblical antecedent is the story of Lot, where God offered to save Sodom if Lot could find righteous individuals (rather than the men who clamor end at Lot’s door to sexually assault the fair young men, described as Angels, who were hosted in Lot’s home, who refused to be dissuaded from their desire even when Lot offered to let them have their way with Lot’s own daughters (according to the way it is written in the KJV, at least). As for vessels being protected, there was apparently a common practice of using a ship that had reached its last legs for one final trip, loading up with Mormon emigrants. The ship captains and owners allegedly had noticed that the ships that transported Mormons were protected from the normal perils, to the point that an otherwise unseaworthy ship could make a final voyage that would not be risked oh dear normal circumstances.
So I guess I would say that an understanding that bad times lie ahead is not inconsistent with any major system of belief or unbelief.
Joey, I don’t think Mormons in general think it will get that bad, but they do see it as a general warning that it could. Lets not forget that only one generation back there were the genocides of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. As Meg pointed out there is ISIS that in my mind comes right out of the Book of Mormon pages as similar to the Lamanites who could be unleashed against the more civilized as punishment for sin and unbelief. In other words, I don’t think Mormons dwell on it, but the total disintegration of society is always in the religious background for consideration. The main message of the Book of Mormon is that society and individuals both must covenant with Jesus and repent or be destroyed first by their own actions and then by the mercy and justice of God.
I am not sure why you are concerned with Mormons viewing such terrible times as approaching. The Book of Revelation doesn’t paint a very pretty picture either as Meg points out is interpreted by other Christians. How long before the the near total collapse of civilization is to happen cannot be determined, but for many Mormons the signs are there. There is hope that things can turn around, as again the Book of Mormons teaches, but there also comes a time when a line is crossed that cannot (or rather people refuse to) be reversed.
By the way, I really liked the school analogy.
Society circa the late 1900s had developed a wide range of rules intended to stifle the ability of same-sex partners to enjoy the range of protections afforded heterosexual partners. For example, I had a friend who wished to set up a mutual life insurance policy with another single mother, but they were prevented from doing so, even though they were effectively like god parents to one another’s children, rather than anything that involved mutual sexual activity.
On the other hand, children in need of some adult to care for them were fostered and adopted by same-gendered households at a time when the other half of society was denying any people with even a surface semblance to gay/lesbian couples health insurance, visitation rights, housing, and ability to designate their partner as survivor. So same gendered couples were being permitted to care for children, the purpose of marriage, and were being denied the legal niceties of marriage.
Thus a 2015 defense of traditional marriage is decades too late, though I do not mean to suggest that no defense should be attempted.
Re: Genocide and cannibalism.
Has anyone been paying any attention to Syria? Videos available of “warriors” eating body organs of the slain enemy out there. Syria maybe not technically genocide (but are we that far removed from the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Kurds are still fighting ISIS, etc.?), but the cannibalistic acts are still present today and genocidal behavior seems to pop up around the world fairly often. The Book of Mormon was recording a fairly isolated incident. Plenty of similar incidents all around the world. Not all get reported (probably lots in Africa that we never hear about) or paid much attention.
World is a big place. The US news cycle has enough fluff in it that we tend to remain somewhat isolated to a lot of bad things that are happening to a lot of people.
Nate wrote: “The battle is practically over anyway, and what will be left is trying to protect religious liberties, so the focus going forward will have to be focused on why cake bakers are not bigots.”
I think bakers can immunize themselves by letting the customer know that under certain circumstances, all the proceeds will be donated to, say, The Family Research Council. The issues are more likely to be what is taught to our children in schools, the extent to which churches will be pressured to conform to the standards of the sexual revolutionaries, i.e. religious liberty as Nate correctly notes, and what our own behavior should be in the face of an unrighteous, sinister, or corrupting culture. We have been through this before with pornography, divorce where a marriage should have been saved, immodesty, promiscuity, abortion, drugs, etc. Each family with the encouragement of the Church will have to fortify itself and uphold standards we know to be true.
We also forget that we are part of a worldwide church. Some nations have already gone far down the path of redefining marriage. Most of Asia and Africa has not. In other countries, the issue still hangs in the balance. Regardless of what the state has done or will do, Latter-day Saints can stand as witnesses of the truths of the gospel and in the Proclamation on the Family. We will find many sympathetic friends and people who have been kept from the truth because they knew not where to find it, and we may rescue some.
Leo wrote:
“we may rescue some.”
I don’t know about you, but my goal is, as Nephi’s, “that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.” :a href=”https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/33.12″>2 Nephi 33:12
Obviously much of that saving must occur after this life. But I’m not content with some salvation that only anticipates a fraction of some one-digit percentage of mankind.
Dear ldsphilosopher,
My ipad has injected numerous weird things, and I’m content to leave most of those in, but could you please fix the most recent comment, where I screwed up the html?
It should have read 2 Nephi 33:12
The battle is practically over anyway, and what will be left is trying to protect religious liberties, so the focus going forward will have to be focused on why cake bakers are not bigots. Can these same arguments be used in that battle?
Nate, I think you miss the point.
The point is that it doesn’t matter if a person is a bigot–he is still a person and therefore has individual rights, including–if not a religious right to opt out of actions to which he finds religiously objectionable–at minimum, a free-expression right to refrain from participating in expressive activities with which he does not agree.
Re “we may rescue some.”
Yes, in the larger context, we all want everyone to be saved who can be saved, which I take to be almost all. And this should be our eternal goal. But in the current context, i.e. today’s date and the subject of the original post, given the number of Latter-day Saints in the world and the world’s hostility, ignorance, or indifference, and the high stakes for individuals, we should be overjoyed at saving just one soul. (D&C 18:15). We hope, of course, that that be many souls (vs. 16). Our job is to cry repentance when and as we are called to do so (vs. 14, also D&C 88:81), but conversion is the province of the Holy Spirit (John 3:8) and we cannot tell whither it goeth or when or how soon.
Re: Genocide and cannibalism
I know that genocide and cannibalism have recently existed and continue to exist in the world.
I understood the comment to imply that perhaps genocide and cannibalism could just be decades away in the United States and other western countries that are legalizing gay marriage.
As far as I know, most genocide and cannibalism in the world today take place in areas that have no legalized gay marriage but on the contrary adhere to rather traditional forms of marriage.
(I found the comment interesting; my intent was not to jack the thread.)
Joey Di,
Thank you for clarifying your comment. I guess that I read Meg’s comment differently than you did, so I did not see what correlation you were trying to make. I do not think that she was drawing a direct correlating line between the legalization of gay marriage to the advent of genocide and cannibalism at all. Rather, that as societies in general abandon a love of God and then in turn the love of man waxes cold, bad things tend to happen to the society in a much more rapid fashion than one could have imagined.
Meg later mentions biblical examples of this. I think that there are also some very valid examples in secular revolutions, as well. The bloodiness of the French Revolution (still small scale to later communist revolutions), the massive death leveled by Mao, Pol Pot, the imposed Ukrainian famine, etc., all have seemed to me to be an effect of the love of man waxing cold as God is rejected by a society, or at least its leadership.
Thanks for the follow up comments. Incidentally, could I get a page or citation reference for the cannibalism in the Book of Mormon? I’m interested in reading about the issue in the context that the narrative places it in. I’m not having much luck doing a search at http://www.lds.org. I suspect this is because the actual text probably doesn’t use the word “cannibalism” or similar.