A debate about Prop 8 was aired by Fox 11 news this morning - the responses to the questions were very good. In particular, I liked how the judge who was speaking for Prop 8 responded to the claim that children will not be taught homosexual ideals in school. He said that schools are not required by CA law to teach a comprehensive sex education course, but that if they choose to do so, they are required to teach about marriage. Since 96% of CA schools choose to teach sex education, it follows that 96% of schools are thus required to teach about marriage including, if Prop 8 doesn't pass, homosexual marriage.
In response to the assertion that even if schools choose to teach about gay marriage, schools will be required to notify parents beforehand and give them the option of removing their children from that education, the judge only had time to say that the assertion isn't true before he was interrupted. He's right, though: according to CA education code 51932(b), "instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions" is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws. In other words, if schools are going to teach about marriage and family life, including homosexual marriage, they're not required to notify parents or give them an opt-out option if they're not also going to be teaching about the human reproductive system.
I've long believed that even though those who oppose Prop 8 say that it has nothing to do with children, some of them* are, in fact, targeting our children, just as they have in Massachusetts. This just lends a great amount of validity to that belief.
Edit: see the post directly above this one for more background, but pages 2-5 of this document give the legal background substantiating these claims.
*(This originally said "they". That's probably not true, and is probably more inflammatory than anything else. While I think that some of the biggest & most vocal opponents of Prop 8 have our children in their sights, I also agree that many, many other people just want to look out for their homosexual partners and/or friends. I apologize if the original text was offensive to anyone - that was not my intent.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
You can't say in one paragraph that this will be unavoidably piggy-backed in via sex education loopholes and then in the very next paragraph say that parental notification can be bypassed if reproductive organs are not discussed.
You make it seem like their are secret cells of terrorist homosexuals that have infiltrated our schools across America just waiting to use loopholes to poison our children's minds with the evils of homosexual marriage.
@Dr. Venkman,
See the PDF document that I link to in the post directly above this one. In it is a 3-4 page segment documenting the very things that you're taking issue with in this post.
I'm not a legal expert, but I trust that the legal experts involved in this campaign know what they're talking about.
It is not completely crazy to believe that schools would teach a multi-week comprehensive sex-education course, dedicate 1 week to talking about marriage and families, and then dedicate another to a discussion about the human reproductive systems. In this case, they wouln't have to notify parents about what was happening the first week, but would have to do so for the material of the second week.
I can understand the concerns religionists may have IF they believe that knowledge about homosexuality has the power to somehow turn their children gay.
For the rest of us who understand that sexual orientation is a trait one is born with, I'm sorry but we just don't see the 'gay-indoctrination-via-public-school-loophole-conspiracy-theories' as anything but fear propaganda.
While I agree that people may be born with some genetic disposition towards homosexuality, I don't believe that they are, therefore, bound to follow that disposition. The same principle applies to alcoholism and drug use - some people are inherently more prone to addiction to some of these substances, but they can choose not to ever touch them, and thus avoid the problem of addiction altogether. Some people are probably more disposed to become addicted to pornography than others, but despite that weakness, they don't have to fall into the addiction.
Everyone has the ability to choose how they'll live their lives, even if some struggle with weaknesses that others don't. The tendency towards homosexuality is just one of those weaknesses.
I am going to say this the nicest way I possibly can so please do not take offense. While I respect your beliefs as an extremely minority religious group in California, America, and the world...
This is why the issue has conjured up such extreme emotions. You don't even see how inherently offensive your explanation is to the homosexual community. You speak of homosexuality as if it is some addiction, disease or birth defect.
I'm not saying you need to give up, or even keep quiet about your religious beliefs. Just realize that the Mormons only make up about 1.8-2.0% of California population. The other 98% may not share your views, so please be considerate of our feelings while you add politics as a new form of missionary work.
Phillip, don't you think you have taken the evangelizing on "Yes on Prop 8" too far?
People say that Utah Mormons are weird but holy crap man.
I have stayed pretty quiet and read all of your blogs and links. I have to honestly say that I do not agree with you or the fear tactics. Many of the arguments are recycled from previous attempts to disallow blacks in the schools, segregation, interracial marriages, women suffrage.
If you used half as much energy pushing family night you may have a much more positive impact on protecting the family than what I have been reading.
Study the Loving vs Virgina trial and see if history repeats itself. All the same tactics were used there as you have posted here. Marriage is a civil right as discussed in the Virginia vs Loving trial for interracial marriages, one in which state governments can not infringe.
I respect you on your desire to put family at the top of your priorities of things of importance, but try to be understanding of those around you that may not have the same beliefs.
I have much more to say but I refrain.
Here is the link to my blog on same sex marriage.
For those of use that don't know it, we are bound to repeat it.
History Repeasts Itself
Tell me if you have heard this before
My bad. This was suppose to be my second link.
Click here.
Christopher,
From an LDS perspective, there is a fundamental difference between the interracial marriage debate and the current one.
I'm not aware of any statement by LDS Church leaders that interracial marriage was an abomination or that members should actively oppose it. In the case of same-gender marriage, they have unequivocally said both.
Kimberly, I think what I am going at here is not the fact that you have a strong believe in something. I respect that. What worries me is the level of fanaticism that comes from taking a stance on an issue.
When you start banning certain products and companies because of their donations and views on things you start dividing yourself from society. How can you ever expect your missionaries and families to go into the communities that are different and ask for respect in your belief system when you can't give it to someone so different.
Once again this is not an argument against your stance it is against your implementation and tolerance.
When you send your sons and daughters on missions to the world you are going to want those that think they are "weird in their beliefs" to still show them respect. So of course the same should come from us on this issue as well, especially to those that are honestly born with same sex tendencies and hold different views on how they should be treated.
Now the moral reason and socially responsible reason prop 8 should be voted no or yes is different and we can talk about that later.
First of all, I think it should be noted that we haven't boycotted anything (though Phillip was briefly tempted to do so :).
Second, the fact that I respect a person and their beliefs does not mean I automatically allow those beliefs to become law. In this election year, I'm sure you have heard people express views on a variety of subjects which you think would have a negative impact on our society. I assume you respect those people, but you still plan to vote against their policies.
That is how I view Prop 8. Both sides have strong beliefs about the definition of marriage, and about the impact that definition will have on our state. On Nov 4th, Californians will declare one of those beliefs the law of our land, and it will be taught to the rising generation, either directly in school or indirectly as they see an increasing number of same-gender couples declaring their union to be a marriage.
I gather from what you've said in other comments that you feel homosexuality is genetically predetermined, and therefore Prop 8 will have little impact on future generations because people who pursue a gay lifestyle were destined to do it regardless of what they were taught.
For my part, I believe doctrine and sociology both indicate that there is some choice involved in the decision to lead a gay lifestyle, and that choice is likely to be influenced by what we teach future generations. If we choose to teach them incorrect principles about something so vital as gender and family, we will bear part of the responsibility if they believe us and act accordingly.
Kimberly,
I am glad to hear you have not boycotted anything. Those iPhones are pretty cool.
Remember that the gays are not the ones pushing belief into law on this amendment. It is the other way around.
I thought about continuing with this argument because it is always fun to debate with smart people, but I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that.
I am sure you have already heard this argument (and have a readied reply), but I would love to hear your take on D&C 134:9.
"We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied"
Looking forward to your reply. Cheers.
i must make one simple comment to both dr. peter venkman and chris ... on "homosexuality is genetically predetermined" ... maybe it's just me, but it cannot be genetic ... that takes certain genes to be passed on. as homosexuals cannot have children, i don't see how this is scientifically possible. it's simple science to me.
Jodi,
Let me take the obvious one first and then I will let you go scour the scientific journals. Some people are born with men parts and some are born with women parts. Medically speaking when this happens it is easier to take something off to fix the problem (BUT what if that person was not suppose to be a woman? What if they are more dominantly man?)
This would be a very obvious example of someone born both.
How far fetched is it that if a person born with both tendencies and both parts (including the hormones that cause attraction to one sex) can be born gay.
I cannot talk for every person that is gay out there, but I have talked to gay people before. One guy in particular left a lasting impression on my mind. The guy said he can remember from the Third Grade having a strong attraction to other guys. He did not tell me this with an agenda but with great shame. He remembers that his first crush was on another man.
I wonder if you would be so bold as to declare with finality that he was not born gay. His background didn't have abuse or any weird upbringings. He was just born that way.
Also, countless interviews with others with this problem lead me to believe that most people don't want to be gay, they just are. I only went to school with one known gay girl (throughout my High School time). She spent most of her time ostracized and in the stairwells. I am sure if it were a popular thing to do she would have an excuse to be gay, but it wasn't and tried to commit suicide multiple times because she was such an outcast and so depressed. If you are interested in know who this was I can tell you in private (she was a member of the LDS church).
Go talk to someone that is gay if you have not yet (that way you get an honest opinion and not one in which you were just taught. Go base your own conclusions based on rationality, being objective and real data and then let me know what you think.
So I argue that someone can be born with it. Evolution throws all kinds of curve balls at Biology, but these are the natural laws of our universe and we deal with them.
Definition for the term hermaphrodite used above:
A hermaphrodite is an organism having both male and female reproductive organs.[1] In many species, hermaphroditism is a common part of the life-cycle, enabling a form of sexual reproduction in which partners are not separated into distinct male and female types of individual. Hermaphroditism most commonly occurs in invertebrates, although it is also found in some fish, and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates.
One more thing Jodi. It is pretty well know that sexuality is determined by many things. There is no gay gene, but there could be something different in the hormone factories of the body, as well as protein synthesis, who knows what is involved there...
Some people are more strongly sexually attracted to one sex then others, some of us like sex more than others, some are not very sexual at all.
All these things cannot just be tracked on a pedigree based on father, mother, grand father, grand mother. Sometimes Biology throws us something because two people brought together the right catalyst, sometimes it is mutation.
To those here who are members of the church, who believe it's doctrine & also simultaneously believe that homosexuality is genetically determined & homosexual individuals have no choice in the matter, how do you reconcile both those beliefs?
The scriptures, together with what I know about the nature of God tell me a few things:
1- The Lord, through his servants, has said multiple times that homosexuality is a serious sin (see "True to the Faith - Chastity", Romans 1:26-27). It is one of the main reasons for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
2- The Lord promises that no individual will be given a temptation stronger than they are able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). People, if they exercise faith in the Savior, will be enabled to overcome all temptation and weakness (Ether 12:27).
3- God is just.
If all of these things are true (and I believe they are), then how is it possible that God, being just, would call homosexuality an abomination, and yet send children of His to the Earth with homosexuality built into their genes & no choice in the matter? That makes no sense to me at all - thus my assertion that while an individual may have a genetic tendency towards homosexuality, they always have a choice about whether they will yield to that tendency or not.
Please note I'm not trying to be contentious here - this is a serious question, and I'd like to hear from you guys how you reconcile your belief in the gospel with this belief about homosexuality.
"Those iPhones are pretty cool."
I agree, and I still want one. I'm just not sure I want to pay $30/month for a data plan.
I know that was off-topic, but thought you might like to know I think the iPhone is pretty revolutionary.
Now, back to the topic of the post...
GREAT post Phillip. Loved it. To be honest I don't know if I have reconciled it comfortably for myself yet.
I will have to answer, I don't know, but I have and promise to continue searching to find my answers.
Too bad this is all done through blogs, I am sure if we were sitting in a room and talking it wouldn't be so drawn out as posting on a blog. Cheers and thanks.
If you want a good discussion of the Church's stance on same-gender attraction, read the interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman posted on the Church's website: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
Among other things, they acknowledge that many people struggle with same-gender attraction, and that the reasons for that lifelong struggle are not always clear. They also note that counseling helps some, but not all. That said, I think a quote from Elder Wickman is very telling:
"One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior."
In that interview, they also note that those who struggle with same-gender attraction are still worthy to attend the temple, serve missions, and fully participate in the Church AS LONG AS they don't act on their inclinations.
The same is true for all of us. We all struggle with inclinations to some vice or un-Christlike behavior. Worthiness is determined not by absence of temptation but by resistance to it, and God has promised that He "will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor. 10:13)
That doesn't mean resistance is easy. I have a childhood friend who has battled same-gender attraction all his life. A conversation with him a couple years ago opened my eyes to the fact that such a burden can be grueling even for someone who strives to live worthily and would give anything to have the burden removed.
Elder Wickman declared that it WILL be removed in the next life. In the meantime, in this mortal moment of our existence that seems to last forever, it is our responsibility to resist our temptations, whatever they may be. God will not punish us for our inclinations, but He is bound to reward or punish us for how we choose to respond to them.
And that is precisely the problem with legalizing same-gender marriage. It publicly condones and even celebrates a choice that could be disastrous for someone's salvation. When society no longer defines a sin as such, those inclined toward it feel fewer qualms about committing it. How much more so if we equate the wrong choice with a wonderfully right one?
In response to Chris's question about D&C 134:9, strictly speaking it only says that mingling religious influence with government is inappropriate IF it promotes one religious society over another society, or denies the rights of a particular society's members.
Since Prop 8 is not creating a state religion or persecuting any particular religious organization, I assume you cite this verse because a) you think religion shouldn't mingle with government AT ALL, and/or b) you extend the verse's meaning to apply to anyone's rights.
If a), I don't believe that total separation of religious morals from government is what the Lord had in mind. Rather, the Book of Mormon specifically states that if "if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come" (Mosiah 29:27). We're not Nephites, but this is still the promised land, and the same principles still apply in it.
Also, note that the footnote on "mingle" directs us to Alma 30:7-11, which says that "there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds." However, the passage goes on to state that if a man robbed, committed adultery, etc., he was punished. If a man believed adultery was good, he was perfectly welcome to believe that. However, if he acted on that belief he was subject to punishment under the law.
Similarly, Prop 8 is not about creating witch-hunting mobs to throw homosexuals in prison simply because they have that inclination. Government should not regulate beliefs, but it exists for the express purpose of regulating actions "for the good and safety of society" (D&C 134:1). If the majority in a democracy determines that same-gender marriage would not be "for the good [of their] society," (and at least one apostle has clearly stated that it would not be*), the society has every right to regulate that action.
On the other hand, if you were focusing on b), the idea that religious views should not justify denial of anyone's rights, I agree with that principle, but I suspect we disagree about whether same-gender marriage is a right.
I would argue that it isn't a right because homosexual domestic partnerships already have all the same privileges as married couples, guaranteed by California Family Law 297.5. All they would gain from calling their union a marriage would be the title, and an inaccurate title at that.
As Elder Bednar has stated: "By divine design, men and women are intended to progress together toward perfection and a fulness of glory. Because of their distinctive temperaments and capacities, males and females each bring to a marriage relationship unique perspectives and experiences. The man and the woman contribute differently but equally to a oneness and a unity that can be achieved in no other way. The man completes and perfects the woman and the woman completes and perfects the man as they learn from and mutually strengthen and bless each other. “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11).
Gender is an essential component of marriage. If both genders aren't involved, you don't have a marriage. A couple can try calling it that as long as the they are alive, but once they reach the next life the union will end forever, not because God is prejudiced but because the union was never a marriage to begin with.
God doesn't offer His opinions; He just teaches us eternal facts. In that light, teaching future generations that same-gender marriages are the same as heterosexual ones is a cruel deception, since one has the potential to be eternal and the other does not, worlds without end.
___________
*See Elder Bednar's recent interview: http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/media/mediaplayer.swf?media=http://broadcast.lds.org/newsroom/video/flv/bednar_edit02_150k.flv&type=FLV
I am glad you answered that scripture for me Kimberly. You are the first person to actually answer it and you did a fantastic job.
This will be my last post here.
I can see now where we differ. We differ on the right of marriage. You said, "but I suspect we disagree about whether same-gender marriage is a right." You do not believe same sex marriage is a right. I think I can safely say we differ on that and on who gets to tell you that you have that right (the right to marry). In your case the state is allowed to define that by law based on eternal principles (like you closed with).
That is more theocratic than utilitarian and would fit under something that I would hear in Iran.
The afterlife and the eternal truth stuff can be debated forever by different denominations and it doesn't hold when passing a law (too many different opinions there that are solely based on faith). This was one of the primary reasons our founding fathers believed in separation of church and state.
Religions would not have to teach homosexual marriages are the same as hetrosexual ones.
Depending what religion you belong to you can teach whatever principle your faith believes. Some faiths maintain polygamous eternal teachings, most don't even have a concept of marriage after death.
This is the problem when using religion in creating law.
I wonder how moral it is to use your beliefs to define the eternal sanctity of marriage for all. If like you said they can call it whatever they want but it won't be marriage to your god, what do other people care if they don't believe in the same god?
The people of our land are not of the same heart and mind yet, so it would be wrong to pass law as such.
As far as the majority is concerned, well, we will see where the majority stand in a couple of days.
Once again it looks like we differ on the right of marriage and the definition of a civil marriage as well as who should invoke the power to determine if an individual can be called married (on a governmental level).
Forgot to post this with my last post. I honestly respect you and Phillip in your decision to vote Yes on Prop 8. It seems that you guys have both weighed this out and come to a solid conclusion that is well thought out. I get the sense that you are honestly following your heart and that deserves respect.
Kimberly...here are "prophetic revelations" that show even Mormon doctrine evolves on issues of social policy:
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
Author: Brigham Young; Source: Journal Of Discourses; Volume: 10; Page: 110
---------------
Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.
Author: Joseph Fielding Smith; Source: Way To Perfection; Page: 101
---------------
"When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn't a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise. (58-08)" (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.302)
---------------
I can show similar progression on your LDS positions on homosexuality if you'd like. As scientific knowledge progresses...the LDS arguments evolve as well.
Does science/social policy trigger revelation? Why do LDS revelations seem to frequently coincide with heavy pressure from outside sources?
I wonder how long after NO on Prop 8 wins and science isolates the process which identifies sexual orientation during the fetal period, how long until we begin hearing how homosexuals were less valiant in the pre-existence and were born into life with a curse of homosexuality...
Dr. Venkman, I confess I don't know how to explain some of the things you cited above. That being said, following a living prophet has never steered me wrong yet, and I'm convinced that it never will.
Moreover, there have been several instances in my life when I heard a doctrinal statement that initially seemed at odds with my concept of a loving and just God, but as I retained my faith that the source was inspired, the statement eventually became clearer to me in a larger Gospel context.
I suspect that the same will be true for the things you cited. While I can't account for them now, I'm sure I'll eventually come to understand how they fit into God's larger plan. That has always been my experience in the past.
Post a Comment