Why do we have to “tolerate” lowering standards, increased coarseness of language, increased pornografication of society, etc.?

While at school yesterday, (back to law school at age 39) someone blurted out a mother…something and then apologized to me and I said, don’t worry about it…that was a mistake–I should have said ‘apology accepted’ or something. It is OK to let people know that bad behavior is unacceptable. People know right from wrong, at least a little bit. We do not, no, we MUST not lower our standards just because some around us have lowered theirs.

We MUST not let our society diminish. My Bishop is an uber-liberal who gave me a certain finger as he drove past me. I was out sign-waiving for a congressman. He didn’t know who I was (sunglasses, hat, etc.) but I knew him.

Stand up for all good things. Support them.

Get prepared for the coming onslaught.

My question is: who do you think has the right to uproot and burn out the tares?

Because, you’re saying “good riddance!” You’d like to clean the church of anyone who disagrees with you, who has different politics, or doesn’t measure up as a true saint in your estimation.

I’m trying to remember from the scriptures: which part of the body of Christ gets has the job of encouraging other members to leave? Perhaps Connor is the Eye who says to the Hand, “I have no need of thee. I’ve decided you are a tare.”

I’m not as sure as you who the tares are. So I will continue to include and encourage anyone who is drawn to the Christ’s church.

That didn’t happen around my area of California. I looked up the people in my stake who had donated, and virtually every one of them (including the most vocal of the leaders) had donated under their wives’ names.

I brought in up in high priests meeting, and was told (rather angrily) that the general authorities had recommended that, because they didn’t want anyone’s business to suffer because of their donation. I reminded them of all the stories we teach the youth, about standing for something, not working on Sunday, showing faith, and etc. It turns out, from what several Prop 8 supporters told me afterward, that the donations were all that were required to Stand for Something.

That attitude really rubbed me the wrong way.

First, you say that language changes, and you cite as example the word gay. I agree with you that language changes and words evolve. While it’s true that the word gay has evolved over time, from meaning happy, to eventually meaning homosexual, the essence of “happy” hasn’t changed such that to be happy is to be homosexual. The label has changed but the underlying ideas have not. We’re not arguing against the change of the meaning of the word marriage, we’re arguing against changing the very essence of the underlying idea of marriage. Certain words evolve, generally these are slang words, and when the etymology stabilizes these words can be adopted into a higher standing than mere slang. Gay is still slang but is rapidly approaching stability in meaning homosexual. Homosexual never was slang and the meaning of homosexual is, I would argue, largely immune to etymological drift. You can’t redefine the word homosexual without redefining what people believe homosexuality is. For example you can say homosexuality is a choice, or not a choice. Now you can’t simply define the word that way, you must build up a belief that the essence of homosexuality is thus. The same thing holds for marriage, you can’t just redefine it and chalk it up to etymological drift. You must of necessity change the very essence of marriage. That I will not stand for (and 52% of Californians).

Also, coming back to “drawing the line,” you say that you would draw it at consenting adults, with certain definitions of consent and adult. I fully agree with your consent and adult arguments. I would simply move the line to be at consenting adults of opposite sex. Again, it comes down to what marriage is at a fundamental level, and not simply the meaning of a word. You can disagree with me about what marriage fundamentally is, but do not pretend you’re just following word drift, and that I’m somehow illogical to resist that ‘word drift.’

I respect your perspective, I must however, take issue with your view of society. While it is true that changes in language and social makeup are a natural part of things, I do not agree that these changes are necessary or even good.

This is a major part of the label ‘conservative’. We tend to find a place society has been and plant our flag in the sand and attempt to push society back from crossing the line. We usually choose these lines according to our ideology, especially religion.

The battle over marriage is one of the places we have planted a flag and do not want the line crossed.

We hold marriage to be a sacred institution between a man, a woman and their creator, with the sanction of the state. We believe marriage to be the bedrock of society, the building block upon which societies must erect all other institutions.

No matter how much society has insisted that marriage does not have to be tied to child rearing, that is one of the most important roles marriages play. By the very nature of the two bodies that are involved in a gay union, no children are even possible, unless outside help is sought through adoption or insemination.

By changing marriage to be any two people who love each other, you belittle the role of childbirth and parenting. There are severe consequences of this change, we are already feeling it without gay marriage. The high divorce rate and low percentage of couples that even marry are a direct result of this attitude. We have thrown away the notion of commitment to a family unit above self.

I will continue to fight this change, and work to restore the sense of duty to God, family, and community before self, when it comes to marriage, especially in my own children.

This is not a civil rights issue, it is a moral issue, and an issue vital to the survival of our way of life.

Thanks for a thought-provoking question.

Thanks for the question. First, a comment.

As a linguist, I realise that the definition of words is not a fixed thing. We’ve seen how the meaning of a word like ‘gay’ has shifted (and is still shifting) from ‘happy’ to ‘slutty’ to ‘homosexual’ to ‘stupid’, just to name one example. This process is not necessarily good or bad; it’s just something that people do when they use language, and language users can’t really prevent it from happening.

I suppose you could say that the US Constitution isn’t a fixed thing either because it can be amended over time to reflect people’s needs.

In like manner, the definition of marriage is not a fixed thing. It has changed and will continue to change over time. Good people in ages past lived in a society that couldn’t imagine a relationship between black and white as acceptable. As society changed and it became imaginable, the definition of marriage changed. (Some people are still fighting it, and we rightly abhor them.)

Perhaps some good people on this blog can’t imagine a gay relationship, or don’t find it acceptable. In ages past, it wasn’t even imaginable. Gay people had to stay in the closet or marry someone they didn’t want to. But now society as a whole is increasingly finding the idea of gay marriage acceptable, and the definition of marriage will again change. Some will hold out for decades, and the rest of us will rightly abhor them.

In the future, the definition of marriage will change even more.

Now, as to me, if you’re still curious. I think that marriage should be between human adults who want to get married. You’ve correctly guessed that ability to consent is my guideline. I don’t favour marriage between people and box turtles (who can’t consent), nor between adults and children (same), nor between a man and a cartoon character (same).

I don’t even have a problem with polygamy as such. If a bunch of adult humans wanted to marry each other of their free will, I’d say fine, even though it would cause the stretching of some legislation. The only reason I generally regard Mormon Fundamentalist polygamy with grimness is because its religious nature makes me suspect that it’s coerced. Tell someone God wants you to marry ‘em, bring in the fear of eternal consequences for disobedience, that’s coercion. I’d object to a traditional marriage under those circumstances; again, for reasons of consent.

I might change this view; I’m not married to it. (For reasons I’ve discussed.)

But having said that, back to my point. It doesn’t matter what I think the definition of marriage should be. Future generations will define it differently, in ways that suit them, and this won’t necessarily be good or bad. I might be the old fart holding up the sign: No to marrying cartoons!

But for now, I’ll work in my own small way to make changes to reflect my values, as you do. I just won’t pretend that my values are eternal values.

You are correct that it is unfair for me to say that ALL Mormons support Prop. 8 out of bigotry or hate. I edited my blog post title from “Mormons Celebrate Bigotry” to “Prop 8 Supporters Celebrate Denial of Rights,” which I think more accurately reflects the photo. I also edited my blog text so that it is clear I am not speaking of all Mormons but only some. And I posted a new blog entry praising Bill Marriott for the statement he made on the Marriott web site. I appreciate the many Mormons who followed their conscience in opposing Prop. 8. It was not easy for them to do. I agree that I was guilty of painting with too broad a brush in my original post at my blog and in some of the comments I have made in the aftermath of the election. Juston’s post helped me see that.

Juston, you are painting with an awfully broad brush here. I think it is unfair to tarnish an entire “community” with the actions of a few individuals who acted badly. There have been dozens of protests and peaceful demonstrations at which thousands of gay marriage supporters have gathered without similar incident. The video shows one where a few angry people in an emotionally charged atmosphere acted atrociously. What those individuals did to the lady with the cross was deplorable. They should have allowed her to speak her mind and demonstrate peacefully the way they want to speak their minds and demonstrate peacefully. What is revealed in the video is anomalous–most of the protests and demonstrations have gone off without violence of any sort. And to the extent that there have been altercations, there have been just as many (if not more) acts of violence or words of hate directed at the gay marriage supporters from the so-called Christians who are opposing the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

For you to condemn the entire “gay community” as intolerant is unfair and incorrect. Would it be fair to say that the “Mormon community” is filled with hateful murderers because one of the men who killed Matthew Shepard was a Mormon? I don’t think so. Condemn individual acts that are worthy of condemnation, but don’t ascribe those individual acts unfairly to everyone associated with the cause.

Additionally, who would you exclude (if anyone) from marriage and why?

Is your position of allowing gay marriage based on being consenting adults? My guess is that you have a point where you wouldn’t allow marriage to be extended to some individuals. The polygamist may want his marriage to multiple wives recognized. Would you feel comfortable allowing a polygamist’s marriage to be recognized?

My guess is that you would not support it, even if it involved consenting adults. If this is the case, how do you make the argument for gay marriage without allowing the polygamist the same recognition?

Let’s get this straight about ‘marriage’ and ‘rights’.

1. Gay people in California, until recently, had the right to marry each other.
2. Now they do not have that right.
3. This right has therefore been removed, and the LDS Church has been instrumental in stripping this right from them.

Is your position that the gay & lesbian community is NOT attempting to redefine marriage?

No, my position is that gay people should be allowed to get married.

Anyone catch Olbermann’s special comment? Rather moving.

Thanks for the link to the Palm Springs news coverage, I sent it to some relatives with a note to the effect “I will not write any commentary, just let you watch it.”

Toleration, it seems, is asked to be extended to the gay community but they certainly did not tolerate her cross.

Is your position that the gay & lesbian community is NOT attempting to redefine marriage?

In my view, a definition of marriage already exists but it needs to be put into the state constitution for those who don’t want to recognize this definition and are attempting to change it.

This is such a curious line of argument. The more people oppose the Mormons, the more it shows that the Mormons are right because the only reason people would oppose you is if Satan is inspiring them to fight against you because Satan knows it is true. That line of thinking essentially excuses Mormons of all responsibility to act in a manner that does not raise the ire of their neighbors. It gives you carte blanche to act as rudely as you wish–if your behavior elicits a strong negative reaction in the people you offend, well, that just proves you are on the right track because the only reason people would react in opposition to you is that they are inspired by Satan!

When you see the world (as from this post, apparently Connor does) in stark black-and-white, us-against-them terms, where the Mormons are always right by definition and anyone who disagrees with them is always not only wrong but also a footsoldier in Satan’s army of evil, I think you are on rather dangerous ground.

I assure you I am not inspired by Satan (or any of his alleged minions, for that matter). And I don’t think Satan really needs to work all that hard to convince people that many Mormons, motivated by their religious beliefs, are working against the civil rights of gays and lesbians–the Mormons so working are doing a fairly persuasive job of that all by themselves.

As for my aimless desperation, I am not really trying to convince the readers of this blog that the Mormon church is “unfair and discriminatory.” I do think it would be beneficial for some of the folks commenting here to step outside the echo chamber for a spell and actually think about some of the questions I have raised. As someone pointed out earlier–any opposition I am providing is, according to prophetic pronouncement, going to end up being good for the church’s missionary efforts (so perhaps instead of censoring me, Connor should be thanking me for posting here. :-))

One question nobody has answered is whether the LDS prophets were speaking for God and, therefore, correct, in supporting segregation, interracial marriage, and slavery (on the grounds at the time that they were “moral issues”) or whether they were wrong. If they were right, should members of the church today be working to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit once again interracial marriage? If they were wrong, is it possible that the leaders of the church today are wrong? If you as a member of the church think they are wrong, what should you do? How is that course of action similar to or different from what you would have done vis-a-vis the Civil Rights Movement? I recognize that these are difficult questions that require a certain maturity to grapple with. Much easier to just pretend the issues aren’t there.

Being from San Diego, and having been cursed at many times, flipped off, signs stolen, etc through this whole prop 8 thing, I can’t help but gain a stronger testimony of the importance of marriage and our duty to protect it. If it wasn’t so important to God’s plan, why would Satan be working so hard to make people think the church is hateful, bigoted, and unfair? …The same reason he worked so hard to try to prevent Joseph Smith from restoring the gospel! Because Satan know’s it’s true!

We’re not preventing anyone from marrying. We’re just defining marriage. In a way that prevents those people from marrying. Heh.