Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Marriage Amendment

The LDS church teaches that someday the constitution will hang by a thread and then the elders of Israel will rise up and save it. It appears to me, they don't really understand the constitution and are now contributing to having it hang by a thread. The constituion guarantees rights, it grants rights, it expands rights, it does not restrict rights. Supporting the proposed Marriage Amendment restricts rights, hence it delutes the purpose of the constitution and the elders of Israel seem to be riping the documents into shreads (or should I say threads).
Another thing, the LDS Church teaches that in the pre-existance the followers of Christ did so because of the principal of believing in free agency. Satin's plan was to force everyone to obey. Now with the proposed Marriage Amendment, the church is not supporting free agency but wanting to force people to obey the principals of the church.
Finally it seems that in order for religion to truly work there always has to be a fight against good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. The LDS obviously view themselves as the "us" but the them seems to have changed through the years. It's been the Missourians, the persecuters, Arkansas Travelers through Southern Utah, blacks, communists or a host of others. Now it appears to be homosexuals. By having a 'them' they can ignore that we are all children of God who all made choices prior to coming to the earth and are free to make choices here on earth. Also by being "us" they know what the truth is and no matter how incomplete their view is, it's still true. Religion has always acted as if all knowledge is possessed within itself, in spite of science, art, or history seeing things differently. Galilao lost his eyes for seeing truth but the church took hundreds of years to see what he saw. Today with all the research on the differences between gay and straight individuals, it appears that there is still a lot to learn about why people are the way they are yet with churches, including the LDS church, they seem to have the answer, it's sin. Do you really believe that people who refuse to look outside themselves can actually speak the mind of God? Do you believe that people who cherish the rights of the constitution can scrap them on moral grounds without faith in free agency? Do you believe that polictical might should used to replace the moral responsibility of the Church to teach it's members the truths it values? For me the answer is NO to all of these questions. To me it shows a lack of faith by an organization that should promote faith. It also shows that the core values of the church can be scraped for a "Moral" issue in the name of political expediancy. My opinion may not be listened to or valued by the church but I believe what I believe because of the church.


Blogger Cameron said...

You've made a few good points here and I'd like to respond a little, if I may:

You imply that free agency means that everyone should get to do whatever they choose. The reality couldn't be further from the truth, both in terms of "civic" agency and "religious" agency.

Our country has plenty of laws that "restrict" our actions. We are not allowed to do a whole laundry list of things. The Constitution does "guarantee rights", as you state, but it also provides our country a way to govern itself through a series of laws. Those laws are there for a reason. One of those laws concerns marriage. Marriage has always been between man and woman, and only recently has this institution been challenged. The challenge is being met in the political arena through the Marriage Protection Amendment. If it has enough support, it will pass. If it doesn't, it won't.

As for free agency in the religious realm, the argument is very similar to the one above. In no era has God ever told His children to do whatever they want. He gave them agency, but then he gave them rules. He also spelled out the consequences of breaking those rules. No one is or ever has been exempt from facing those consequences. But the larger interesting point remains: why does He give us rules? For our own well being. So we can be saved. So we can be happy.

4:11 PM  
Blogger That One Guy said...

Consequences are simply the result of using free agency. They are there, both good and bad. If I kill someone, there are consequences, if I give a man a dollar on the street, there are consequences, if I choose to stay in bed today, there are consequences, if I break a law, there are consequences. Does it mean I *can't* do these things, or does it mean I *shouldn't* do them? Certainly, I *can* do them, I just have consequences. When you make a choice, you choose the consequence.

It's simple, man is free to choose his destiny. There are consequences in every single choice.

The constitutional document should only be used to guarantee freedoms to choose, and allow me to excercise my rights, equal to everyone else.

If straight people have survivorship benefits (for example) for a committed adult partner, then EVERYONE should have access to that.

It's simple.

3:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home