The Hypocrisy of Mormons in Opposing Gay Marriage

Question:

Joshua,

How is it possible for you to support your church with it going against its own scripture? “We do not believe it 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.” (D&C 134:9)

United Church of Christ
The resolution “In support of equal marriage rights for all”, supported by an estimated 80% of the 884 General Synod Delegates, made the United Church of Christ General Synod the first major Christian deliberative body in the U.S. to make a statement of support for “equal marriage rights” for all people, regardless of gender.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ The Unitarian Church also supports gay marriage.

The Mormon Church spearheading Prop 8 in Californian has denied equal rights of a minority. The LDS Churches position toward gays is totally at odds with mainstream psychology. See the American Psychological Association statements:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

Answer:

The church is going against it’s own scripture or teaching. In this case it all depends on what you mean by the words “equal rights”. The way I see it, gays have the same rights I do in that a gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as I do. I have every much right to marry a man as he does. That’s equality. We both have the exact same rights. Now, if you change it to say “But no Josh, you have the right to marry whomever you want to because you only like women, and a gay man doesn’t,” that doesn’t change anything. If I were in love with a man, I wouldn’t be able to marry a man. Yes, I was able to marry the person I love, but only because I chose to love someone whom I could legally marry. If I made the choice to love a man, I would be restricted just as a gay man would be, or in other words, we are on equal footing when it comes to the law. The difference is not how the law applies to a gay man vs. how it applies to me, it is that the gay man who wants to marry his partner has made a choice to be in love with someone whom he can’t legally marry.

In fact, the church’s stance is completely in line with the scripture you quoted, because it is our fear, and there is plenty of evidence to substantiate it, that if gay marriage were legalized it would lead to lead to a denial of the rights of LDS Church members. For example, once gay marriage is legalized, it’s just one more step to say that speaking out against gay marriage is a form of legal discrimination. If I were to say on this blog that I think gay marriage is wrong, and a gay man applies for a job with my company and is turned down, he could sue me for illegal discrimination and he would stand a better chance of winning with a gay marriage law on the books. A member of the LDS Church who teaches in a lesson that gay marriage is wrong could be sued for hate speech. Don’t tell me it would never happen, it already has in other countries where gay marriage is legal. This would impinge on the free speech rights of church members, not to mention religious rights. In fighting against the gay marriage movement, the LDS Church is trying to protect the rights of its members, rather than remove a right from someone else (which we don’t believe they have in the first place).

As for the APA, they are, in fact, going against their own “scripture”, inasmuch as they used to officially define homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Comments

  1. Josh, sorry for the thread navigation problems.

    In 1975 would your argument hold true with the following modification?

    In fact, the church’s stance is completely in line with the scripture you quoted, because it is our fear, and there is plenty of evidence to substantiate it, that if INTERRACIAL marriage were legalized it would lead to lead to a denial of the rights of LDS Church members. For example, once INTERRACIAL marriage is legalized, it’s just one more step to say that speaking out against INTERRACIAL marriage is a form of legal discrimination. If I were to say on this blog that I think INTERRACIAL marriage is wrong, and a man OF A DIFFERENT COLOR applies for a job with my company and is turned down, he could sue me for illegal discrimination and he would stand a better chance of winning with a INTERRACIAL marriage law on the books. A member of the LDS Church who teaches in a lesson that INTERRACIAL marriage is wrong could be sued for hate speech. Don’t tell me it would never happen, it already has in other countries where INTERRACIAL marriage is legal. This would impinge on the free speech rights of church members, not to mention religious rights. In fighting against the INTERRACIAL marriage movement, the LDS Church is trying to protect the rights of its members, rather than remove a right from someone else (which we don’t believe they have in the first place). LDS leaders statements on civil rights and mixing of the races are well documented (Google Erza Taft Benson). How is this any different from today?

    Perhaps you can comment on how heterosexual orientation is determined vs. homosexual orientation. Do you know the specific endocrinological, biology and genetic factors involved in heterosexual orientation and can you explain the delta in these factors for the determination of homosexuality? If not, aren’t you making unsubstantiated assumptions? Have you ever been attracted to a member of the same sex? If not, when and how did you choose your orientation? Behavior is a choice, orientation is a different issue.

    Do you think the APA willy nilly removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders? The use a standard of peer review and studies that can be duplicated. Most religious publications on homosexuality are just that papers, with no objective to meet the standard of peer review. If your right the APA's ideology is wrong.. Then how have the following organizations become corrupted with the same ideology? Seems like there are plenty of checks and balances to make corrections if errors were made. Could you be wrong? What checks and balances do you apply to your rationale?

    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Association of School Administrators
    American Counseling Association
    American Federation of Teachers
    American Psychological Association
    American School Counselor Association
    American School Health Association
    Interfaith Alliance Foundation
    National Association of School Psychologists
    National Association of Secondary School Principals
    National Association of SocialWorkers
    National Education Association
    School SocialWork Association of America

    Perhaps the same logic and reasoned opinion lead to the removal that lead to the discovery that African Americans were not less valiant in the spirit world and deserve equal rights. Do you think women should have the right to vote? What new knowledge caused the change in this thinking? What caused the change from the Mormon official practice of polygamy, was it new knowledge or because the US government stepped in?

  2. Do you think that that interracial marriage should be subject to majority vote? Moreover, should homosexuals if they can create a majority situation, say in San Francisco be able to vote on whether Mormons civil marriages should be invalidated or not allowed. Would you be happy to have a majority of homosexuals deciding on your marriage? I suspect your answer is that you would not like it, but a majority vote is a majority vote….

    I suggest that at the Federal level, we have something called the Bill of Rights, specifically the 14th amendment for due process and equal protection. This silly thing called the Bill of Rights purpose to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority vote. For example, SCOTUS determined in Loving vs. Virginia that the marriage is a fundamental right of free americans. Meaning that immutable characteristics, like race and for the majority of Gays and Lesbians, orientation is an immutable characteristic. For example, I'm not aware of any studies that show that its possible to change Heterosexual foot ball players into broadway show singing homosexuals.

    A fundamental right of free americans, that cannot be overruled by majority vote. That being said, can you come up with sufficient constitutional justification to deny marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Waving the book of Mormon or bible is not sufficient justification just as an fyi.. Because other religions honor or perform same gender marriages.

  3. Josh, in 1975 would your argument hold true with the following modification?

    In fact, the church’s stance is completely in line with the scripture you quoted, because it is our fear, and there is plenty of evidence to substantiate it, that if INTERRACIAL marriage were legalized it would lead to lead to a denial of the rights of LDS Church members. For example, once INTERRACIAL marriage is legalized, it’s just one more step to say that speaking out against INTERRACIAL marriage is a form of legal discrimination. If I were to say on this blog that I think INTERRACIAL marriage is wrong, and a man OF A DIFFERENT COLOR applies for a job with my company and is turned down, he could sue me for illegal discrimination and he would stand a better chance of winning with a INTERRACIAL marriage law on the books. A member of the LDS Church who teaches in a lesson that INTERRACIAL marriage is wrong could be sued for hate speech. Don’t tell me it would never happen, it already has in other countries where INTERRACIAL marriage is legal. This would impinge on the free speech rights of church members, not to mention religious rights. In fighting against the INTERRACIAL marriage movement, the LDS Church is trying to protect the rights of its members, rather than remove a right from someone else (which we don’t believe they have in the first place). LDS leaders statements on civil rights and mixing of the races are well documented (Erza Taft Benson). How is this any different from today?

    Perhaps you can comment on how heterosexual orientation is determined vs. homosexual orientation. Do you know what the specific endocrinological, biology and genetic factors involved in heterosexual orientation and can you explain the delta in these factors for the determination of homosexuality? If not, aren’t you making unsubstantiated assumptions? Have you ever been attracted to a member of the same sex? If not, when and how did you choose not to be?

    Do you think the APA willy nilly removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders? Perhaps the same logic and reasoned opinion lead to the removal that lead to the discovery that African Americans were not less valiant in the spirit world and deserve equal rights. Do you think women should have the right to vote? What new knowledge caused the change in this thinking? What caused the change from the Mormon official practice of polygamy, was it new knowledge or because the US government stepped in?

    In regard to the APA, some of the additional organizations that support their "ideology" are provided below. Additional checks and balances to validate their conclusions and recommendations. What do you use to validate your understanding and opinion of the APA ideology? Anyone can have an opinion, but the quality of that opinion is where the rubber meets the road. The APA uses a standard of peer review and examines data that can be replicated in their quality control called the Scientific Method. Therefore, they are selective in opinions because unless analysis of data meets this standard, it won't hold weight and be used to make recommendations for public policy. Do you hold your own opinions about the APA to a similar standard? What supporting specific facts or data do you have to support your claims about the APA is too selective?

    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Association of School Administrators
    American Counseling Association
    American Federation of Teachers
    American Psychological Association
    American School Counselor Association
    American School Health Association
    Interfaith Alliance Foundation
    National Association of School Psychologists
    National Association of Secondary School Principals
    National Association of SocialWorkers
    National Education Association
    School SocialWork Association of America

    The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex
    attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or
    mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health
    professional organizations.

    Elder Bruce Hafen said on 9/19:
    "People who are attracted to members of their own sex can change, an LDS general authority said Saturday, so they shouldn't let Satan persuade them they can't." What standard does he use to validate his expert genetic scientific opinion do you suppose? Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Utah, in an interview with The Tribune , called Hafen's assertion "hilarious" and "absolutely untrue." Further Dallan Oaks said "We Should Follow The Spirit In Determining How Much We Shun Disobedient Children"

    Elder Oaks needs to be more clear about treating Gays and Lesbian family members differently than others because some Mormons might cross the line with their shunning:

    "We must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones but to break spirits," Obama said. "No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love." Can a gay couple hold hands on Temple Plaza? Could Rosa Parks sit at the front of an LDS owned church bus in 1953?

    Judy Shepard said the law (Mathew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act) — named in honor of her son Matthew, who was killed in 1998 by a Mormon and another assailant in Wyoming — was just the beginning.

    "This is the first step," she said, tears rimming her eyes after more than 10 roller-coaster years filled with advocacy and anticipation. Asked what the day meant to her and her family, Shepard said simply, "Everything." As she had watched the president bring the bill's journey to completion from her front-row perch at the signing, Shepard wiped away tears flanked by Atty. Gen. Eric Holder on her left and her husband, Dennis, and their son, Logan, on her right. Despite the well of emotion, she added, "I am totally energized; it's all positive. I just can't even tell you how great it feels."

    "This is a great tool for the Justice Department and will, I think, significantly improve the quality of life for people with disabilities, for women, and for gay and lesbian Americans," he said just after the bill was signed into law.

    The new law expands federal hate-crimes protections beyond people targeted on the basis of a their race, color, religion, or national origin to victims of bias crimes motivated by their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

  4. Josh – I'm probably not posting this in the right place, but hope you will at least take a look at it before you hit the delete key.. I made the following short You tube video on Sunday from pictures I took that day. I tried to capture a message. A positive message. The question I'm trying to answer is are of these folks wrong? Should they really be shunned as Elder Oaks strongly recommends.. Help me understand…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESrxuVsf_4

  5. Due Process and Equal Protection 14th Amendment US Constitution.. Does due process and equal protection apply to all Americans or just some based on popular vote or personal opinion?

    According to David Boies, the lawyer fighting to overturn Prop H8 (e.g., the Mormon view about same gender marriage) and the US Constitution:
    ——————–

    "…..it is important to remember that the legal question [equal protection and due process for GLBT marriage equality] does not, and under our Constitution cannot, depend on people's personal [religious or moral] preferences.

    The constitutional issue is quite simple. The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution:

    In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, a unanimous court overturned the laws of more than 20 states that at the time prohibited interracial marriage.

    In 1978, the Supreme Court, in Zablocki v. Redhail, vacated as unconstitutional (by an 8-1 vote) a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The court emphasized, "Decisions of this court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

    In 1987, in Turner v. Safley, the court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying, holding that marriages were "expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship."

    Moreover, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy elegantly wrote in Lawrence v. Texas, rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights:

    "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." — Philadelphia Inquirer

  6. Joshua it appears this thread is pretty well hidden on your website. I hope you are not banning some of your replies to outer darkness:) I might remind you of the teachings of John Taylor: “I think full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret, not underhanded, and I for one want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation.

    Journal of Discourses, V20: 264

    Joshua stated:

    In fact, the church’s stance is completely in line with the scripture you quoted, because it is our fear, and there is plenty of evidence to substantiate it, that if gay marriage were legalized it would lead to lead to a denial of the rights of LDS Church members. For example, once gay marriage is legalized, it’s just one more step to say that speaking out against gay marriage is a form of legal discrimination. If I were to say on this blog that I think gay marriage is wrong, and a gay man applies for a job with my company and is turned down, he could sue me for illegal discrimination and he would stand a better chance of winning with a gay marriage law on the books. A member of the LDS Church who teaches in a lesson that gay marriage is wrong could be sued for hate speech. Don’t tell me it would never happen, it already has in other countries where gay marriage is legal. This would impinge on the free speech rights of church members, not to mention religious rights. In fighting against the gay marriage movement, the LDS Church is trying to protect the rights of its members, rather than remove a right from someone else (which we don’t believe they have in the first place).

    Skeptic responds:

    You provide no evidence to substantiate your claims. I certainly understand your concerns however. Imagine a gay couple who had already married in California before Prop 8 and you denied them employment disregarding the 14th Amendment which advocates the principle that “all men are created equal”. Not to mention Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Sexual Harassment – This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including **same sex harassment**. See: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html With the LDS Churches stance on same sex marriage and the secret oath of loyalty to the Church you have taken in the Temple this would certainly be a concern for you. Embracing Civil Liberties and the 14th Amendment it is very clear the LDS Church is at odds with its own scripture whereby LDS Theology against gay marriage is fostered over other religions such as the individual rights of the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Churches who allow such marriages.

    Joshua you stated:

    “The claim that the American Psychiatric Association is a provider of “sound medical advice”. From what I can tell, it’s an organization that has its ideas grounded less in science than their own particular ideology, which they try to back up through selective science.

    Skeptic responds:

    Joshua you provide no information to substantiate your position that the APA has its ideas grounded less in science than their own particular ideology which they try to back up through **selective science**. What is selective science please provide verifiable examples. I’m open to questioning my assumptions if you will provide the evidence.

    I might mention some history for you regarding to your stating: “As for the APA, they are, in fact, going against their own “scripture”, inasmuch as they used to officially define homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

    Joshua, the APA’s baseless label defining homosexuality as a mental disorder prompted the gay community into activism. Evelyn Hooker then took on research which revealed (using nonclinical samples) (Personality tests) of homosexuals and heterosexuals revealed that homosexual men and women were essentially similar to heterosexual men and women in adaptation and functioning whereby homosexuals could not be singled out from heterosexuals. These tests were further replicated using the Eysenck Personality Inventory, Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire [16PF]) and mental disorders (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI] see: (Siegelman, 1979; M. Wilson & Green, 1971;

    see also review by Gonsiorek, 1991) Because of damn good evidence homosexuality was then removed from the DSM as a mental disorder and psychology embraced a more refined scientific method.

    Again I commend you for engaging in dialog on your website and indicating you are a truth seeker. In my opinion truth seeking demands discussion and a major component of intellectual honesty is when we can questions our own assumptions.

    George A. Smith in 1871 stated: “If faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.”

    Journal of Discourses, V14: 216

  7. Darn, all that hard earned tithing opposing gay marriage, and yet it's legal to marry in California,

    New York, …

  8. …Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, Washington…

  9. Does is have something to do with being near the ocean? Does the sea make people gay or is the sea gay itself (Except for Iowa- could it be the corn?) Ahoy, maitees! (and corn-on-the-cob connoisseurs!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>