Is there room for compromise for gay marriage in Utah?

Full disclosure: I have several good friends who self-identify as being gay.  I consider these guys brothers and feel like our friendship is good enough that we can have frank talks about our views on this subject without offending each other.  Unfortunately, it seems that the world at large does not have this same benefit and that is what I am hoping to help change with this post.

Same-sex marriage is a controversial subject and in the world at large there seems to be a lot of shouting and contention and not very much listening and understanding of opposing points of view.

Recently, a federal judge overturned Utah's 66% voter approved state amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  From what I have seen of the initial reaction, the loudest voices are pretty polarized on the subject :  Either it's 100% the right call or it's 100% the wrong call.

I believe that it's a lot more complicated than this.  And I believe that if both opposing sides took more time to listen and understand, we'd be a lot better off.

Part of the reason we are in this mess in the first place is that marriage (for many of us) is defined by both religion and government.  This presents an inherent conflict which some of us (including myself) have been oblivious to because traditionally the government definition has represented a mostly compatible subset of the religious definition.  However, if one's religious definition of marriage is not compatible with the government's definition, this creates a problem, the very problem that so-called "gay activists" are trying to solve.  If for example, one's personal "religious" definition of marriage is that marriage is a commitment between two loving consenting adults (regardless of gender), then the traditional government definition of marriage may feel like an oppressive institution because it _excludes_ (or even _discriminates_) by forcing an individual to choose between living their life how they choose (aka "practicing their religion *") or getting government benefits that they are supporting by being a tax payer.

* When I say religion, I realize that the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is just my personal non-religious opinion."  Or the reader might say "Hey, I don't have a religion, this is how I was born."  Please bear with me on this; for the purpose of this article I am going to assume that all personal definitions of marriage are religious because by my logic, any definition of marriage that contradicts my religious definition of marriage MUST logically also be an alternative religious definition.  I hope that makes sense.

As one of my gay friends pointed out to me, there are legitimate problems with the government system where someone who self-identifies as gay and wants to live a "gay lifestyle" can't decide where their social security money goes to should they die, can't get hospital visitation rights, can't file joint taxes, and can't get family health insurance coverage for their partner.  As he explained this to me, I nodded in agreement with him.  For example, I think that if I am paying into some kind of long term fund (like social security, life insurance, whatever) that I absolutely should be able to decide whom my beneficiary is.

It is for this reason that I think it is legitimate that the current government system of "marriage" can and should be tweaked to accommodate our brothers and sisters who have their agency and want to use their agency to find happiness in the best way they see fit.

How this tweaking takes place, however, is quite unclear and I think requires a lot more dialog in the public square than the loud finger pointing that we have going on right now.

A common theme I hear and read is that the concept of changing the government's definition of marriage can't possibly affect anyone negatively, so anyone who is against it is just being a religious bigot and hating/discriminating against gay people.

I feel sad and misunderstood when I hear/read things like this.

In fact, changing the government definition of marriage presents some fairly major problems for me personally (and I am sure for many others).  I will try to illustrate.

To me, marriage is a deeply personal and religious concept.  It is an institution created by God and has virtually nothing to do with taxes, governments, hospital visitations rights, insurance, or inheritance; it is all about very serious covenants with God and spouse, putting God's will before one's own will, and thereby denying oneself of one's physical appetites in order to increase one's spiritual power and growth.

- If the government defines marriage as something that is somewhat compatible with my own definition, I can live with this.  This is how it's traditionally been.
- If government defines marriage as something that contradicts my own definition, this creates _confusion_ because now if people are talking about marriage, are they talking about the government definition or the religious definition?  It's confusing.  Not a deal breaker, but confusing.
- However, if I am forced to prioritize the government's definition of marriage over my personal religious definition of marriage or get sued/intimidated/boycotted, then this becomes a major violation of my freedom of speech and freedom of religious rights.

You may say "But Matt, you would never be forced to prioritize government's definition of marriage over your own personal definition!"  Sadly, we've already seen this happen:

Religious liberty and gay marriage collide as New Mexico photographer loses case
Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Denied Gay Couple A Wedding Cake, Closes Shop

Let's look at the Chick-fil-A CEO's comments:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

The reaction that he received to this remark is particularly alarming to me because to me, what he is saying is pretty similar to what L. Tom Perry said in General Conference:
"For man to substitute his own rules for the laws of God [..] is the height of presumption and the depth of sin." ( see citation )
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a person should be able to say that God's rules trump mankind's rules and that for man to substitute his rules in place of God's rules is arrogant.  So what exactly did the Chick-fil-A guy say that warranted such a swift condemnation from some?  I really am baffled here and I think it's troubling to say the least.

This is what scares me.  It seems like the whole gay marriage movement isn't just about fixing broken government policies, but for some, it's about silencing anyone who says "same sex marriage is contrary to God's plan for His children."  Shouldn't making thoughtful and frank statements like this be the absolute right of all rights guaranteed by the constitution?

Here's another reason I am concerned:

It's pretty common to hear buzz words like "marriage equality" or the concept that a same sex marriage is equivalent to a traditional marriage, a concept that the courts seem to be latching onto.

This may seem harmless at first.  After all, "who am I to judge" right?

What I don't think many people realize (and I certainly don't hear this talked about) is that if I proclaim that same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage, I am in effect placing myself in opposition to God.  It's a pretty easy logical path to reach this conclusion:

1 - God has revealed through prophets that His ultimate plan for His children is that husband and wife be not only married on earth, but sealed for time and all eternity in holy temples so that their family relationships can live beyond the grave and into the next life.  He shows us how serious He is about this by promising that only those who actually enter into this marriage covenant _and_ endure to the end will obtain His highest and choicest blessings.
2 - Logically, this means that this "temple marriage" must be of greater value (in God's eyes) than any other committed relationship on earth, including a secular marriage (heterosexual or homosexual), a non-married heterosexual couple living together, and a polyamorous couple.
3 - Therefore, for a person such as myself who holds these believes to solemnly proclaim that same sex marriage is "equal" to temple marriage (for example) would be equivalent to me saying "God is wrong" or "God is a liar" or "God discriminates against gays".

At any rate, there is no good end game for me to be compelled (through courts, laws, boycotts or other forms of intimidation) to say that same sex marriage is equal to the my definition of marriage because it makes me a complete hypocrite before God.  This is not the kind of position I want to be in!

Another troubling obstacle to the whole "equality" argument is a scientific one (at least, I think it's scientific hehehe):

Children who are raised by their biological parents have a significant advantage over children in other circumstances.  And before you think I am being discriminatory, I am actually citing a scientific study.  Check out Dallin H. Oaks talk about protecting children, the most vulnerable group in our society.  Check his source in the footnotes, he cites a scientific study.  For this reason, it may (MAY!) be appropriate for government to "discriminate" for the sake of children by having some kind of policy in place that incentivizes biological parents to raise their own children.  I would hope that courts take the needs of children into higher consideration in the future before making their decisions.  Thus far, it has seemed to me that children are the after thought.

------------------------------

I think we can come up with a compromise here!!!

By identifying each side's needs and goals, I think there is common ground we can find.

One idea of mine would be to strip the government of its power to define what marriage is and instead have the government rename what it calls "marriage" to something else, like "legal partnership".  I personally don't think I would have a problem saying that I am "legally partnered" to my wife instead of "legally married."  From what one gay friend tells me, this would go a long way to giving the gay activist camp what it wants and it would also would solve my dilemma of putting myself at odds with God.  It is unfortunate that our society has splintered like this but based on where we are now, this seems like a Not Horrible Solution.

If anyone has any other ideas (aside from the "I demand unconditional surrender and won't even attempt to put myself in the other side's shoes") feel free to leave a comment.

Opposing view points are welcome as long as you are respectful, calm and thoughtful!

More attacks on the family: Polyamory

I just read this article on cnn.

One quote stood out to me:

"We want to promote the idea that any relationship is valid as long as it is a choice made by consenting adults," he said. "In this regard, and as in most things, promoting public acceptance is the first step."

This idea that this gentleman wishes to promote is a false idea which contradicts God's clear laws on chastity and family.  See https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

Broken politics contributing to moral decline in USA

I recently received this email from my senator, Mike Lee:

"I was honored to join my colleague, Senator Ted Cruz, in an extraordinary effort to bring the voices of the American people to the halls of Congress with one simple purpose: to make DC listen to the American people's concerns with Obamacare.  Senator Cruz started speaking at 2:41 p.m. on Tuesday, and he spoke for 21 hours on the Senate Floor.  I stayed up with him through the night, and I had several opportunities to share the concerns of the American people from the Senate Floor while also outlining the path Republicans can take to defund Obamacare."

I am bewildered that Mike Lee thinks that attempting to force congress to get rid of Obamacare in exchange for keeping the government running is a good idea.

Do you like to be forced?  Do you know anyone who likes to be forced?  I sure don't!

Why does Mike Lee think that trying to force anyone to do something is going to bear positive fruit?  I am at a loss here.

From where I sit, it appears that the Democratic party in this country is the party taking the clear, thoughtful approach to government while the Republican party increasingly is looking disorganized, drifting, purposeless, and powerless.

Unfortunately, with the GOP traditionally being associated with religious conservatives, I fear that level-headed Democrats may continue to view most/all religious ideas as "bad" (as well as any other idea coming from the GOP) and continue to try to distance the country away from such ideas.  This may mean that the moral standard of our country will continue to decline which will be bad for Democrats and Republicans alike.

More substitutions of God's rules

I just saw this yesterday.

"There is nothing wrong with consenting adults living and loving how they choose." (see here )

This is a great example of the downward spiral that our world is in today as society continues to devalue God's laws in favor of the doctrine that is pleasing to the carnal mind.

I read a neat verse in the Book of Mormon last night which coincidentally talks about this:

"there shall be great^apollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be^bmurders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it^cmattereth not, for the Lord will ^duphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the ^egall of bitterness and in the ^fbonds of iniquity."

Does this sound like the world in which we currently live?  Yes, yes, it does.

The Gay Marriage Problem

It's time for me to weigh in one of the most controversial issues of our current day: gay marriage.

At first glance, gay marriage seems like a simple issue: Gays have been persecuted, mistreated, bullied, and even killed for as long as anyone can remember and they are actually really nice and harmless people who just want the same respect that everyone else gets.  Plus their behavior is their own business and doesn't affect anyone else.  Therefore, we should have no problem extending them legal marriage as part of our government in order to put a stop to the abuse they have suffered.

Sounds reasonable, right?

It's actually a lot more complicated than this!  And some of what I said above isn't necessarily true (but it sounds good).

I've often felt that the debate about gay marriage should really be a debate about whether God exists.  That may surprise you.

God has commanded in no uncertain terms that sexual relations are to practiced exclusively within His definition of marriage (ie traditional marriage).  In other words anything designed to cause sexual arousal is to be kept between husband and wife.  That means that even commonplace things like sex being used in advertising is contrary to God's commandments.  It also means that common relationships such as unmarried boyfriends and girlfriends having sex is contrary to God's commandments (and yeah I know many of my friends are in this category, don't worry, I still think you are good people and still respect you).  And yes, it means that all homosexual behavior is contrary to God's commandments (notice I said behavior, not inclination).

Now before you jump on the "hate" bandwagon, realize that God also designed our physical bodies to desire behavior that is contrary to his commandments!  That means that most of us are going to have sexual urges that we must not act upon in order to stay in compliance with God's commandments.  Some of us are going to have the urge to sleep with as many partners as possible, some of us are going to have same sex attraction, and some of us are even going to be sexually attracted to children (though we don't generally talk about this).  There is nothing wrong with feeling this way because this is the way God has designed our bodies.  However, God expects us to confine our sexual behavior to His commandments.  It's sort of a paradox.  Logically, we can therefore conclude that a) God expects us to master our bodies rather than allow our bodies to master us and b) everyone who follows God is going to have to give up something in exchange (for example, the guy whose body wants to sleep with 100 beautiful women is going to have to give that up if he wants to follow God)

In summary, if we want to be truly happy in life, we must bridle our passions.

Now, how does this relate to gay marriage?

First of all, it casts some troubling light upon the "equality" argument.  The argument basically feels like it is saying that gay couples have a right to have everyone accept their relationship as if they were following God's standard of sexuality.  Or, stated differently, a couple who is not playing by the rules that God has set forth wants to reap the same benefits as a couple who is playing by the rules.  This seems a little unfair to me.  And it feels like it violates my freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution.  I feel like unless I carry on a pretense then I will become subject to intimidation.  And it seems to be getting worse.

Second of all, the idea of hate and discrimination is troubling also because it implies that God Himself is participating in the hating and the discrimination.  If God says that sexual relations outside His boundaries are wrong, then I don't see how this principle could be considered hateful or discriminatory.

Thirdly, marriage as an institution was created by God; it is not man-made.  Therefore, for society to try to redefine marriage is somewhat concerning.  L. Tom Perry recently said "Prophets from all dispensations have consistently warned against violations of two of the more serious commandments—the ones relating to murder and adultery. I see a common basis for these two critical commandments—the belief that life itself is the prerogative of God and that our physical bodies, the temples of mortal life, should be created within the bounds God has set. For man to substitute his own rules for the laws of God on either end of life is the height of presumption and the depth of sin." (see citation).  This is probably the #1 reason I am concerned about gay marriage, because I don't want to stand before God one day and have to explain to Him why I did not defend the marriage institution that He created.

In conclusion, if God exists, then I feel that gay marriage as the world understands it today, is missing the mark.  It is failing to solve the problem it is attempting to solve.

I have a very good friend who considers himself gay who pointed out to me that there may be cases where the government should extend laws to accommodate gay couples.  And I agree with him!

If someone (who considers themselves to be gay) wants hospital visitation rights for their partner, or to inherit their partner's social security they've accrued for decades, or to have shared medical insurance, or some other government benefit, I don't really see that as a big deal and probably would not stand in the way of laws of that nature.  I consider that type of stuff all man-made, and what one government made, another can modify.  Not a big deal.

But let's come up with a different solution for this rather than changing the definition of marriage.  If we keep the dialog open and try to see where the other side is coming from, I am confident that we can come up with a better solution than what I see brewing in society today.

How Satan can be successful

In my last blog post, I talked about what Satan is trying to accomplish (which I think everyone should be very aware of in order to defend against it).  In this post, I will discuss how Satan is able to be successful.

I believe it comes down to two things:
1) that we can't remember our pre-mortal life
2) that we have physical bodies which have built-in self-destructive appetites

A verses from the Book of Mormon that support this:

"Wherefore, ... reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh" (see citation)

"...I would that ye should look to [Jesus Christ], and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom." (see citation)

In other words, our physical bodies are programmed with set of desires which contradicts the will of God, and therefore is in line with the will of Satan.  Therefore, Satan is able to tempt us.

This life, therefore, becomes an arena in which we attempt to gain mastery over our own bodies.

This is a very important concept to understand because it helps to clarify which behaviors are good and which are evil.

The goal of Evil

Assertion: There is a devil (also known as Satan or Lucifer), he has no physical body, and he was cast out from God's presence for rebellion.

I am going to defer discussion of how I arrived at this assertion for another time and instead focus on Satan's goals.

The reason I find it valuable to focus on Satan's goals is because once one understands these goals, one can see how the world in which we live sometimes has similar goals which is both a fascinating yet terrifying thing to behold.

Definition of Good and Evil: Evil in this context is simply the opposite of Good. Good is simply whatever God's will is.

Thoughtful observation: God, being a superior being, is more qualified to define what is Good and what is good _for_ us, than we are. Therefore, a wise course of action is to defer to God's judgment about what is right and wrong.

Logical conclusion: Therefore, in order to truly know what is Good and Evil, one must also know God's will. Again, I will defer how to discover God's will to another time as it is very important and deserves its own post (or several posts).

Satan's goal: To make all people miserable like he is miserable.  Also to "to tempt men and women, essentially to prove we are undeserving of the God-given gift of agency." (see citation )

Satan's tactics to achieve his goal:
- Try to get people to be angry at truth
- Convince people that they don't need to change and that everything will just work out
- Conceal his existence
- To kill and enslave those who try to follow God

How Satan portrays the Church of Jesus Christ:
- Satan teaches that leaders of the Christ's church are following the "foolish imaginations" of their hearts and are leading many away from lives of happiness and ease to lives of suffering.
- Satan teaches that leaders of Christ's church attempt to keep their followers in ignorance of the truth by binding them to foolish ordinances and traditions for the purpose of maintaining power and authority of them.

Satan's motivation:
"Satan has many reasons for doing what he does. Perhaps the most powerful is the motive of revenge..." (see citation )
In another post, I will explain how Satan is able to be successful at achieving his goals.

Hello and welcome

Hi, Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Matt Ownby and I am what one may call a 'geek'. I love computers, and have loved them since I was about 7 years old, starting with an Apple ][+ in 1982. I love to program computers and I do so professionally. I love nostalgia. I love video games. For some reason, I become obsessed with laserdisc arcade games in the early 80's and in 1999 I started work on a laserdisc arcade game emulator called Daphne which has turned into a huge (and hugely successful) project. I am also a musician. I've played the piano since I was 6. I have a good ear and can play many songs on the piano just by hearing them. I'm also a pretty smart guy, and I don't say this to be arrogant or proud, but to give some context and credibility to my further posts. And finally, I am a very religious person. I'm a proud member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Some people call me a Mormon, I prefer to use the term LDS, but I will answer to either. I also consider myself to have a favorable opinion of science. Some people feel that science and religion conflict, I think that correct religious ideas are compatible (and must be compatible) with correct scientific ideas. My goal for this blog is to explain the world through my paradigm, using religious ideas, scientific ideas, and just plain outright logical reasoning.