I look forward to the day that the popularity and pervasiveness of Savage Love (in all of its awesomeness) is overtaken by Dan's political treatises.

Great post, Dan. One other interesting thing to note in this guys statement: he said he prefers to keep his religious beliefs and the donation he MADE THROUGH HIS CHURCH private.

I'm sure if pushed on this statement he would backtrack and say that he made the donation directly, not through the mormon church, but this "slip of the tongue" alludes to the truth of the REAL influence the church has on members.

As does this comment, posted on a Mormon blog:

"I’m puzzled that you (and others) interpret the first presidency statement as giving “permission” for Mormons to vote no on 8. If you read it carefully, it doesn’t say that at all. It merely acknowledges the fact that some Mormons will, in fact, choose to vote how they want regardless of what church leaders say. I don’t think the statement does anything to overturn the idea that loyal members have a duty to put aside their own feelings and support the church’s position."

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p…

Mormons answer to their church leadership to an awesome and scary degree. To them, their leaders are speaking gods words for him on the earth.

" . . . he helped fund a political campaign to strip a vulnerable minority group of its civil rights."

Dan Savage boldly goes where logic has never gone, offering up two Big Lies in one oxymoronic phrase: (1) that homosexuals are a “vulnerable minority,” and (2) That homosexual activity is a “civil right.”

As for Big Lie #1, there are more homosexuals in California than Mormons. Who is bullying whom?

Homosexuals are no more a "suspect class" than are golfers or unicyclists. This is not a "class" of people who cannot change their behavior. Rather, it is a "club" of people who choose to act out their sexual urges like animals.

I do not say "club of those who are attracted to those of the same gender," because there is insufficient evidence to know the causes of same-gender attraction. I accept the possibility that same-gender attraction might not be either a conscious or an ethical choice. Nor am I maintaining that same-gender attraction can be "cured." Alcoholism is also not easily cured. But are alcoholics a "suspect class” deserving of special protection? No, because they freely chose to take that first drink, and the next, and the next . . . .

We are not animals. Homosexuals who act out their attraction to the same gender are no more a "suspect class" than are adulterers and fornicators who act out their attraction to the opposite gender. Are adulterers and fornicators also “suspect classes” deserving special protection from discrimination? Must we also contrive to redefine “marriage” to assuage their shame?

Which brings me to Big Lie #2, that homosexual activity is a “civil right.” This is why my church must be silenced, and its members who dare to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and free exercise of religion be fired from their jobs, because we dare to proclaim that all sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral, and that immoral behavior is not a “civil right.”

“Immoral?” Yes, IMMORAL!

We believe that God has set bounds to human sexual activity and holds man accountable for disobedience to his laws. To Latter-day Saints, God's gift to man of moral agency and man's accountability to God for his exercise thereof are non-negotiable principles. Bullies like Dan Savage may have succeeded in terminating the employment of Richard Raddon and Scott Eckern, but they cannot extinguish their moral conscience.

I sincerely respect those who find themselves attracted to the same gender but who choose to remain celibate. These are decent, moral, even heroic human beings. In like manner I respect those who are attracted to the opposite gender who choose abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage. All who abide by this uniform standard of sexual conduct are granted the full blessings of my Church.

However, if society can be tricked into redefining the word “marriage,” suddenly homosexual activity is perfectly moral, and Mormons can be prosecuted for “hate speech” if they dare to oppose Big Truth #1 and Big Truth #2.

Many other religious traditions agree with mine on this subject. But there are also strong secular ethical arguments against sex outside of marriage.

I'll cite just one such ethical argument, the common-sense, widely-accepted standard proposed by Immanuel Kant: "What if everyone did it?" If this supposition leads to a logical inconsistency, then the behavior is immoral, and all members of society are under a moral imperative to avoid that behavior.

Kant provided this example: What if everyone borrowed without intent to repay? Answer: Eventually nobody would loan money and commerce would cease. Therefore borrowing without intent to repay is immoral.

Now I ask, “what if everyone practiced sex with the same gender?” Answer: the human race would come to an end. Therefore sexual activity with someone of the same gender is immoral.

Before you shout "homophobia!" (and no, I am not afraid of homosexuals) understand that I apply Kant's standard equally to those who are attracted to the opposite gender. What if everyone had sex outside of marriage? Then all children born would be denied nurture from a father and a mother. Therefore all sex outside of marriage is also immoral.

In like manner it is also immoral to enter into marriage with no intent to reproduce, but at least such couples incur some "risk" of reproduction. Naturally, those who cannot reproduce are excused from Kant's moral imperative to continue the human race.

By the same secular ethical standard, abortion on demand is clearly understood to be immoral. However, abortion in the case of rape or incest, or where the health of the mother is severely endangered, or where the pregnancy has little chance of producing a viable infant, is not necessarily immoral, because such pregnancies are not chosen – those who cannot choose are excused from Kant's moral imperative.

We see, therefore, that those who demand that the time-honored definition of marriage be changed are not only seeking to ban religion from the public square: they are also seeking to ban all ethics from the public square. Only one “sin” will remain in their unholy writ: that of “homophobia.”

Shame on that self-selected club of homosexuals who would force a redefinition of the word “marriage” for the purpose of acquiring, by theft, legal and social sanction of their immoral behavior!

If everyone did what the advocates of same-sex marriage are doing, society would disintegrate into anarchy.

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

Lets keep with the "what if everyone did it" argument here. I have one for you, what if every religion in this country got to impose it's "privately held beliefs" on the other members of this society through laws. All of them. Every one of them.

There's your anarchy.

To protect against this, the founding fathers put into the founding documents the separation of church and state.

This is a pluralist society, you don't get special treatment just because your religion says you are special. Everyone's religion says they are special, get over it.

Bp

Thank you for your posting, Tracy, it's important for us to keep blogs from becoming echo chambers, and a well-reasoned, thoughtful discussion of such vital issues is the only way for us to ever come to the understanding, openness, plurality, and acceptance that a successful democracy requires.

But on to the content of your post: Kant’s poor little categorical imperative has been twisted around a lot--I’d ask you to join us in the 21st century, but that might be a bit challenging. Instead I implore you to at least come as far as the late 20th century so you can introduce something a bit more contemporary (Foucault, perhaps?).

Leaving polygamy, suppression of dissent, revisions of church doctrine when politically expedient, and sexism aside, I would ask you to make a maxim of the following:

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham” – Brigham Young

Or, at the risk of misinterpretations of Kierkegaard being introduced, another juicy little one:
"I was doing God's will, which is not a crime." - Dan Lafferty (a Mormon who, with his brother, viciously murdered his sister-in-law and his nephew)

I’d write more, but I've got to get back to work...however, I too, have faith. …faith that other folks on these boards will also take you to task.

get rid of him! and fire everyone who has such wrong political opinions. i don't care if they are doing the job or not, they should be fired becuase they impact our social consciousness and our liberty. this is america, and the people as a group, not individuals, should be free to decide what can be believed and what can not! if an individual wants to belive something let him but that does not give him the right to be work in a business that has public contact.

bobcomment:

Do you realize what you are saying:

"fire everyone who has such wrong political opinions" -
Whose to say what is wrong - the majority? If so, who would getting fired at this point?

"they impact our social consciousness and our liberty" Whose liberty? Yours or theirs?

"this is america, and the people as a group, not individuals, should be free to decide what can be believed and what can not!" OK, the majority (in CA) just decided that gay marriage is not right. Should you change your mind?

"if an individual wants to belive something let him but that does not give him the right to be work in a business that has public contact" OK, so more than half of the citizens of CA don't have the right to work in a job with public contact?

Misplaced sympathy?

http://julian1st.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/…

Well he had every right to contribute his money to Yes On Prop 8 and the folks who work for the Los Angeles Film Festival and who subscribe to Film Festival events, many of whom are gay, have every right not to want to work with him or to support LA Film Festival events so long as he is president. When you decide to enable the stripping away people's civil rights, you also have to understand that their are consequences to your bigoted convictions. Imagine the head of the NAACP contributing to a ballet initiative that would outlaw Affirmative Action or Interrracial Marriage.

Not Tracy:

"Since sex outside of marriage and abortions are also immoral, where are the campaigns to not allow these people to be married or ever allowed to marry again? How come you are only focusing on homosexuals?"

Well, we don't focus on only homosexuals, we do work on all those issues, generally in a person to person way. It just never comes up for a vote. If it ever comes up, my guess is we'd focus on it the same.

Also, keep in mind that the purpose of religion is to help people change for the better. Every religion teaches that we need to improve ourselves, and Christianity especially teaches that we have to be "born again", become a new person.

In some regard, we have all sinned. We all have to repent and change and submit to the will of God. We all have different challenges.

"I feel like your argument against gay marriage becomes less significant when you start to pick and choose which sins and immoralities should be focused on. Why is a gay couple worse than a couple where at least one person is a murderer. Both are sinners in your and your church's eyes."

In many Christian churches, a convicted murderer is excommunicated. Excommunication in some churches, particularly Mormons, is an effectively spiritual termination of the marriage, if not technical.