FUD and religious intolerance

[Joe Durnavich]

My point is that in a practical democracy certain rights will always be guaranteed, but certain others will not be even though they are enjoyed.

What I was trying to get clear on was the relationship between the law, religion, and personal freedom. It sounds like religion recognizes that there are inviolate legal rights and respects them. Is it the case, then, that religions hold the law as a higher moral authority than religion itself? And likewise, is it the case the there is no basis for personal freedom other than what the law and religion grant it?

The right to engage in certain behavior -- while not explicity guaranteed -- is allowed simply because there is no compelling reason to forbid it. But in theory the majority could forbid it.

It really does seem to be a given here that the individual has no rights other than those granted to it by the state. There should be room here for the view that the objective of the law should be to maximize personal freedom and that the reason to limit somebody's actions is because that person was limiting some other person's freedom of action.

In other words, if you were the only person on the planet, there would be no need for the law. But once you have more than one person using those resources, there needs to be a social mechanism to enforce boundaries around each person's actions so that each person has the maximum space possible in which to carry out his life without invading the space of other people trying to do likewise.

If you, Jason, and I arrived at a territory together, we might agree to divide up the land and to build fences around each property. The fences are like the law, and the space within each is the "right" of each of us to pursue life as each sees fit. The law marks out our boundaries of action. You and I can live it up with hookers, booze, and singing as long as the noise and the partying does not crash into Jason's space. And when you and I wake up with hangovers, destroyed livers, sore throats, and a social disease or two, Jason will not be forced to pay for our care and treatment.

And by expressing my personal belief on the subject and giving my reasons for it, I don't mean to establish that as the objectively correct decision.

Both of you seem to be looking to the practical outcome of a given law, that is, whatever works best in the long run given human nature and given the state of affairs in the world. I think that is the only objective basis for morals there can be, but it also means--I think--that neither religion nor the will of the majority should be the ultimate basis of law.

[JayUtah]

I feel that treating another as an object to gratify one's own desires does psychological harm to both you and them.

Then the can of worms is open.

When you say prostitution is psychologically harmful then your feelings on the matter become irrelevant. Psychological harm is reasonably objectively quantifiable, so you have now made a scientifically testable claim. If you propose that there is objective harm being inflicted then you have the burden of proof to show that harm. Since psychological harm can be measured and since appropriate samples exist in the U.S. population from which measurements can be taken, I'm going to have to ask for your data.

Having sex with someone is not equivalent to having them give you a haircut, and never can be.

But that's either your opinion, in which case others are free to disagree, or it's a measurable phenomenon, in which case you have the burden to measure it if you plan to outlaw it. You can't simply assume everyone feels the same way you do, or should, about sex.

So why isn't adultery illegal? It's the same basic act (treating someone as an object for sexual gratification) you say is so inherently harmful, only this time there's no money involved.

If I go down to the Tavernacle (a popular piano bar near my house) and I meet a woman and we hit it off and "spend the night" together, and she says the next morning that she'll call me and never does, and when I finally see her again she makes lame excuses and brushes me off, that's perfectly legal. I may be depressed and disappointed because I thought we might have had something. She may be disappointed because she felt she was taken advantage of.

But if, on the other hand, I go to some "gentleman's club", and I plop a bill down on the desk for the same basic physical service -- the parameters and expectations of which are clearly spelled out in advance -- and participate in the same basic activity as in the paragraph above and go home, what harm has been done? No one is under any expectation that our transaction was anything other than what it was.

Now there's a way in which your claim might hold water. I've seen it before, so I'm granting it to you.

Let's say there's a nice LDS boy who grows up in Provo. He's active in the church and attends to all his religious duties. He's taught by his parents and his church that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that thinking of his female peers as sex objects is demeaning to them and wrong. But nature, being what it is, floods him with hormones and one night he succumbs with his girlfriend and they commit adultery. Obviously in their situation there will be enormous guilt. They will have to suffer the embarrassment of confessing to their parents and to their religious leaders, each of whom will likely react with some sort of displeasure. The sinners will be made to feel at odds with God's will. In short, you'll have quite a bit of psychological trauma there.

Now contrast this with a boy who has no particular religion. He grows up in West Valley (a "colorful" suburb of Salt Lake City). He is generally well-behaved but boys will be boys. He meets a great girl at a dance and they go out back for some privacy. The same hormones bubble to the top and they have a roll in the hay. Afterward they agree it was a fun thing to have done, but that they don't really want to have a "formal" relationship. And since the physical stuff was fun for them, and as long as they're safe about it, they decide might enjoy it again sometime later.

Okay, where's the psychological harm and why? The psychological harm in the first case was caused by reaction to and context of the behavior, not the behavior itself. This harks back to the old claims that homosexuality was a mental illness. In fact more homosexuals were mentally ill per capita than heterosexuals, but the cause of the mental illness turned out not to be the homosexuality itself, but the sufferer's coping with social effects of having to live in a society that made them villains and told them their behavior was sick and wrong. In short, you can't say that something causes harm if it turns out you're holding up one end of that harmfulness.

See, the whole thing hinges around confounding variables. We say prostitution is harmful and we point to all the violence and abuse associated with it. But a more careful examination shows that the real problem is because it's an outlawed activity, not because it's a sexual activity. If we were to legalize it, those parts of the problem would go away.

We say that sex outside of marriage is a harmful activity psychologically, but then we look closer and we see that the psychological harm is (or may be) the result actually of other confounding variables such as social or familial dissonance. Extramarital sex causes psychological harm not necessarily because it's inherently harmful, but because the people who engage in it may have been told it's wrong or bad and thus feel badly about it afterwards -- that's a circular rationale. If we simply stopped having such hangups about sex, it really might not be psychologically harmful.

This circularity often goes unappreciated. We are finally realizing that prohibiting an act creates dissonance and the potential for harm by creating a norm. Those who violate the norm may indeed be harmed, but people generally aren't interested in whether the harm comes from the abstract sense of violation or from the natural consequences of the action.

...I tend to think that God only explicitly prohibits behavior that is genuinely harmful.

What's so genuinely harmful about grocery shopping on Sunday?

My analogy falls down for you only because you eliminated one of its important premises and defeated the purpose. I'm not interested in whether you believe God should outlaw singing (or some other putatively harmless behavior). One of the premises of my hypothetical religion was that their God did outlaw it. You don't have to agree with that belief, just understand that they believe it.

I can't view a hypothetical religion that considers singing immoral in the same way I can view a real-life religion that views prostitution as immoral because singing and prostitution are in my view as fundamentally different as singing and murder.

And that's why you may wrongly identify some behavior as "religious intolerance". The day you can understand that outsiders aren't necessarily compelled to view some of your beliefs as anything more than silly, unfounded superstition is the day you'll understand what you need to do in order to avoid undue persecution.

The most liberating feeling I had as a Christian was when I finally was able to separate what I believe from what I felt others should believe too. It's to realize that while my beliefs may be real and strong to me, others may have beliefs that are just as real, just as important, and just as strong even though they don't believe the same thing as I do. I wasn't able to grow as a Christian until I accepted that some beliefs were those I held on faith, and that I shouldn't excuse that.

Of course I have to say that the hypothetical anti-singers would be wrong to impose their agenda on everyone else. In my view it's basically a straw man argument.

No, it's reductio ad absurdum. You changed my premise, which made your refutation a straw man.

When the belief in question is absurd in your opinion (i.e., anti-singing), you agree that it's wrong to impose a civil restriction to that effect. You went and said, "but I think that belief is absurd, so I'm going to exchange it for a belief that isn't absurd to me, and that fixes the analogy." You can't blow off reductio ad absurdum by converting the argument back into something equivalent in form but less absurd.

If your belief is just your feeling about something, then you can't use that as a basis for imposing restrictions on other people. You agree with that. But now you're changing horses and saying that your belief isn't just a feeling but is actually an objectively measurable thing. That creates a scientific burden of proof for you.

Whether you actually support that burden on this point is not as important as what you learn by thinking about it. See, I often find that people who hold religious beliefs are not honest with themselves about why they believe what they believe. They state a belief and imply it's based on faith. And then when the belief is challenged, they often backpedal and say that their belief is "really" objectively supported. They want their beliefs to appear to have some intellectual justification, as if they're afraid of what people will think about a belief taken on faith.

I have had numerous Christians (LDS and non-LDS) express a belief in their religion, and then when I challenge it they say, "Oh, but science has shown that...." and then change horses to say that while it may be a religious belief, it's also a factually supported belief. Unfortunately nine times out of ten when someone says, in this context, that "science has shown" something, he can't produce any science to that effect at all, and is often unaware that science has specifically not shown that (i.e., there is no such study), or has even shown the opposite.

So if you want to be true to your feelings and beliefs, Jason, don't tell me that your belief is justified by science (unless, of course, you can show that it is). You say you disapprove of prostitution because you believe treating people as sex objects causes them psychological harm. I say hogwash, not because I'm locked-and-loaded with scientific refutation but because I think you're approach is all wrong. I disapprove of prostitution and sex outside of marriage because I don't believe that's how Jesus wants me to behave sexually. End of story. That's how I think a Christian should answer. You do it because it's likely Jesus said so, and you follow Jesus.

Don't waffle away your faith by vague handwaving. If you're going to be a Christian, stand up and be a Christian. Don't be a Christian until it appears being a Christian is lame, and then say you've been a scientist instead all along.

If I thought the a church was using secular government merely to convenience following their beliefs - like legislating that stores must be closed on Sunday, for instance - then I could see a problem.

...or to harass capriciously the sellers of alcohol?

The problem is often that members of a church don't recognize the difference between their convenience and their perception of what it would take to make a good and orderly society. They blur the distinction between beliefs that they have long held sacred (for whatever reason) and beliefs that are widely held in the world at large (for whatever reason). That's really easy to do if your religion happens to constitute a civil majority.

Hence the reductio ad absurdum. It's often easier to see the flaw in lines of reason when you change the emotional context

When they are encouraging legislation against activities that have little or no positive benefits to any users...

Careful. An activity need not be beneficial in order to avoid being outlawed. The burden of proof is upon those who would outlaw it; they do not get to impose a burden on their critics to prove the activity is beneficial in lieu of the absence of proof of harm. However, a legislature may weigh potential benefit against potential harm, but that does not remove the burden to supply evidence of harm in the first place.

...and cause real harm to at least a minority then I don't see much need to argue.

Ah, but there's the rub. We know some activities cause real harm. But other activities aren't as clearly cut. You may believe that some activities cause real harm, but if that's just your feeling (or worse, if the harm really comes from your reaction to it and not from the act itself) then you have no business trying to use that as the basis for making it the law of the land.

If you go on to argue that even a little bit of harm or even the potential for harm is enough to justify outlawing it "to be on the safe side", then you run afoul of a whole lot of behaviors like river rafting that Mormons enjoy in droves but don't wish to outlaw.

Therefore, in a society that outlaws vice what an individual may lose in learning experience from a lack of opportunity commit it is made up for by the society as a whole not suffering from those who would dangerously abuse the choice.

But again the definition of "vice" rears its ugly head. It may connote something actually harmful, or it may just connote something morally unfavorable, which then brings subjectivity back into the equation. If your morals are subjective, you don't necessarily get to impose them on others.

Let's revisit the Utah liquor laws again. I know you're probably sick of them, Jason, but they make such a good example even neither of us really cares.

If the sillier provisions of the Utah liquor laws were repealed, I will wager that the life of the average LDS Utahn will be largely unchanged. But life will certainly be much better off for that majority who want to buy, sell, and consume alcohol.

The disagreement is in what constitutes a valid cause to prohibit behavior and what the motivations behind current prohibitions are.

Yes, exactly. We say "majority rules" and that's that. But does our responsibility as citizens, religious, and non-religious people end there?

We would have to look at what the detrimental effects of abuse of the behavior are when compared to the benefits it provides and how likely it is that individuals will fall into an abusive pattern.

How about skiing? It's potentially fatal, serves no purpose other than recreation, and (at least among some) is fairly addictive?

See, the problem is that we pretend that we look at these and other activities as if we can reduce them to dispassionate measurements to be dispassionately compared. In fact we look at these activities in terms of whether we subjectively like them or not. That's the real problem.

[JayUtah]

What I was trying to get clear on was the relationship between the law, religion, and personal freedom.

I'll let you know when I have that all worked out.

Is it the case, then, that religions hold the law as a higher moral authority than religion itself?

I think it depends on the mode of the norm in question.

The secular law prohibits some behavior such as robbery. It also requires other behavior such as the paying of taxes. Similarly religious law both prohibits and requires. There isn't usually a problem if the prohibitions and the requirements generally align, which they generally do. The problem comes when the requirements of one are enjoined by the other. If a religion requires the consumption of controlled substances, what do we do? If a religion prohibits mandatory military service, what do we do?

My interpretation of Christian doctrine requires me to be subject to secular authority. I think the generally accepted Christian belief is to "render under Caesar," which is variously interpreted as erring on the side of secular obedience and religious disobedience. I would be at a loss to say why, but I suspect it may have something to do with the suspected lenience of God under those circumstances and the proximal reality of the secular punishment.

However there have been some very notable exceptions, such as the reluctant willingness of early Mormon leaders to be convicted and imprisoned on charges of polygamy rather than forsake their religious belief in it.

And likewise, is it the case the there is no basis for personal freedom other than what the law and religion grant it?

I don't think so. Aside from mandatory observances, the law in both cases generally tends to prohibit rather than to license. That implies licentiousness is the default.

The right to engage in certain behavior -- while not explicity guaranteed -- is allowed simply because there is no compelling reason to forbid it. But in theory the majority could forbid it.

You and I can live it up with hookers, booze, and singing as long as the noise and the partying does not crash into Jason's space.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that I don't patronize hookers or drink alcohol, although I oppose making those activities illegal. I behave in a way that seems appropriate to me, realizing that others may not share my reasons for behaving as I do.

But returning to the analogy, I agree that what we do in our own legal sphere of accountability and effect ought very much to be our own business. If you want to party hearty while I sit and home quietly and read my Bible, that should be your business. I choose to sit quietly and read. I'm not compelled. The fact that our fences don't prevent me from drinking and fornicating doesn't matter.

The problem is that those spheres of accountability and effect are never exclusive. They overlap. And because they do, we'll always squabble over whether the fence should be closer to you or closer to me. I'll naturally want it closer to you in order to keep your carousing as far as possible from my Bible-reading. You'll naturally resent having the fence closer to you than to me, arguing that my choice of activity and its susceptibility to noise and interruption is really my own fault that I should deal with.

The nasty problem of trying to live among people who aren't exactly like each other is deciding on what criteria these fences should be placed. It's not as easy as the analogy suggests.

...Jason will not be forced to pay for our care and treatment.

That's the other problem. Somewhere in the bowels of this board is my essay on public funding.

Jason mentioned that we should consider carefully how addictive some activity may become. This should bear on whether we prohibit or restrict that activity. That presumes we will have some responsibility for or effect from such an addiction.

There's an easier way to think. You, Jason, and I may have divided up the land, but if we are suddenly beset by swarms of locusts we may discover that pooling our resources against the common threat is more effective. Regardless of our personal responsibilities and needs, we find that there is strength in numbers. Instead of three neatly-partitioned spheres of action, we find it best to have four regions: one each for us, and one that is shared between us. The rules by which we inhabit and use that "space" then become another point of negotiation.

I think that is the only objective basis for morals there can be, but it also means--I think--that neither religion nor the will of the majority should be the ultimate basis of law.

I agree. Then the question becomes what constitutes an appropriate mix? This isn't necessarily a Christian or religious problem. It can be thought of purely as a civics question. Are there any motivations acting in any one voter or group of voters that are antithetical to democracy in deciding public policy?

[PhantomWolf]

I tend to have been avoiding this thread, but thought zI'd chuck in a comment or two.

I disagree. I believe that prostitution is dangerous to the participants whether or not it is illegal. Granted it's more dangerous when it's also illegal, but I feel that it is not a healthy behavior no matter how it is regulated or practiced. I feel that treating another as an object to gratify one's own desires does psychological harm to both you and them. Regularly engaging the services of prostitutes could do serious damage to one's ability to emphasize with others. Having sex with someone is not equivalent to having them give you a haircut, and never can be.
So in my view it's not that it's immoral just because God said so - it's immoral because it actually does harm to the participants. The reason for outlawing it is that it is dangerous.

Here I would point out that really Prostitution is as such no more dangerous mentally for a participant than the same activity would be for ones that partake in it without getting paid to do so. One could thus argue that the act of unwed sex with frequent and different partners is not the issue here, but that there is money changing hands. To argue otherwise, one has to question then why a person is not ejoined by law to pick up as many partners as they desire without financial recompence, but is otherwise since there is sprirtually and mentally no difference in the act itself.

That's where your whole hypothetical on singing falls down for me. While I do believe there are things that God has commanded that could have gone other ways - like which day of the week is proper for worship - when it comes to prohibitions against behavior I tend to think that God only explicitly prohibits behavior that is genuinely harmful. I can't view a hypothetical religion that considers singing immoral in the same way I can view a real-life religion that views prostitution as immoral because singing and prostitution are in my view as fundamentally different as singing and murder.

Fine, let's not use a hypothetical. Kite Flying. Let's say you live in a country where the majority have deemed it illegal and against god to fly a kite. (Yes, they do exist.)

Therefore, in a society that outlaws vice what an individual may lose in learning experience from a lack of opportunity commit it is made up for by the society as a whole not suffering from those who would dangerously abuse the choice. Society and the individuals that make it up come out ahead in the end.

But this is the question, do they? Is kite flying so detimental to the society that one that wishes to choose to fly one is being dangerously abusive to the society? Let's take another one, very relevant to today's society. Are we really that worse off as a society because we allow people who have an attraction to members of the same sex to do so publically instead of being hidden away? Or ideed are we better off as a society for accepting individuals within it regardless of who they are?

The case comes down to this. When we have two (or more) consenting adults, who know the risks and dangers, why should we place our own moral standards onto them and demand that they follow our beliefs and religious standards, whether this means an abhorance to same sex relations or relations with payments, or multiple partners or whatever. To me the objections on a "does psychological harm" claim is totally flawed because one such behaviour that would be considered to do so is enjoined, but many other cases that would do so are not. In the end it should come down to the freedom of individuals to choose what is right for them, or else we'll end up with monitors nmaking sure that we are to be following the law in regards to every aspect in every part of our daliy lives in case not doing so has some detrimental effect on us.

[Joe Durnavich]

My interpretation of Christian doctrine requires me to be subject to secular authority.

I don't want to get too caught up in extreme examples such as the following, but if your religion was Jewish and the secular authority was National Socialist, you might hold the law and religion in a different relation, of course. And that would suggest a basis for your beliefs something other than either existing law or religion.

However there have been some very notable exceptions, such as the reluctant willingness of early Mormon leaders to be convicted and imprisoned on charges of polygamy rather than forsake their religious belief in it.

Before the pen was put to the paper to inscribe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the paper was blank. You have to look somewhere else besides the law to come up with the laws in the first place, of course.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that I don't patronize hookers or drink alcohol...

Nor do I. And I should point out the purpose of maximizing personal freedom is not just to provide people with as much party room as possible, but to provide them the room to build as good a life as possible without infringing on others' attempts to do the same.

I behave in a way that seems appropriate to me,

Protecting this is precisely what I think the proper function of the law is. In the end, you have to live your life; others can offer guidance and assistance, but you have to make the decisions and expend the energy to make it happen. You have to suffer the consequences. The law should not be concerned with whether alcohol is good for you or bad for you, but that you are free to find the option that works best for you.

So, I don't wait with baited breath whether Jason and PhantomWolf can figure out if prostitution is harmful to those who practice it. It is not a proper concern of the law. The law should ensure, however, that Jason is free to be morally opposed to prostitution and can publicly express his views, open counseling centers for young women, and so on, as long as he engages in such opposition at his own expense.

The problem is that those spheres of accountability and effect are never exclusive. They overlap. And because they do, we'll always squabble over whether the fence should be closer to you or closer to me.

Yes, if you were the only person on the planet, you wouldn't need the law. Once there are multiple people going after a shared resource, the people need to form agreements between themselves and need a mechanism to protect those agreements. People will always squabble; people will always try to gain an advantage. The law tries to make sure both of us can get as much access to the shared resources as is practical. It is not an easy matter and not all resources are as controllable as land is. My porch light will probably interfere with your telescopic observations. But we just try to cover the common cases and deal with the rest as best as we can.

The nasty problem of trying to live among people who aren't exactly like each other is deciding on what criteria these fences should be placed. It's not as easy as the analogy suggests.

Absolutely true. Disputes between neighbors are sometimes intense and messy battles. But this is only an acknowledgment of the problem of sharing the same planet and the need for a social institution to organize use of those resources. These types of issues are the proper concern of the law; not whether such-and-such a voluntary activity is harmful to people. The latter issues are a valid concern, just not to the law.

That's the other problem. Somewhere in the bowels of this board is my essay on public funding.

When we decide to have the law fight the "War on Drugs" (or the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Terror"), we do force our fellow citizens to pay for it.

There's an easier way to think. You, Jason, and I may have divided up the land, but if we are suddenly beset by swarms of locusts we may discover that pooling our resources against the common threat is more effective. Regardless of our personal responsibilities and needs, we find that there is strength in numbers. Instead of three neatly-partitioned spheres of action, we find it best to have four regions: one each for us, and one that is shared between us. The rules by which we inhabit and use that "space" then become another point of negotiation.

In a free society based on private ownership and property rights, such an order can emerge. We can work out terms among ourselves, draw up contracts, and agree to pay for arbitration if there are disputes in the future. It won't necessarily be perfect and ideal, but it is relatively simple, efficient, and there is a good chance we each will be better off in the long run.

Then the question becomes what constitutes an appropriate mix?

Speaking generally, the law should seek to maximize personal freedom of action and leave people free as possible to guide their personal actions according to the religion or the philosophy of choice.

[JayUtah]

I tend to have been avoiding this thread...

And I'm going to have to curtail my comments. It started as a cure for boredom, but the boredom is gone and I may not have time to finish what I started.

One could thus argue that the act of unwed sex with frequent and different partners is not the issue here...

Neither prostitution nor adultery necessitates frequent or different partners. Again, we must be very careful exactly what variables we're talking about.

Any activity carried to excess has the potential to harm both an individual and his environment and community. There may be occupational difficulty in which the person is too obsessed with an activity to hold down a job. There may be sociopathy in which the person engages in the activity at the expense of meaningful interpersonal and community relations. There may be direct effects, such as obesity deriving from a compulsion to eat. And so we have to be careful whether an excess of sex is bad because sex is bad, or because an excess of sex is bad in the same way an excess of anything is bad. If the latter, and if society has a compelling reason, then we regulate the excess, not the activity itself in smaller amounts.

Some activities carry greater risk to all involved if engaged in unsafely with multiple partners. Hairstyling, ironically, falls into this category. In both hairstyling and sex there are precautions that can be taken to minimize those actual risks. Here again the problem is less with the activity than with an individual's irresponsibility in engaging in it.

...but is otherwise since there is sprirtually and mentally no difference in the act itself.

There are many people who believe just as you do, and many who disagree and say that there is something special about the sex act that requires us to hedge about it and treat it as an inherently different behavior. Their line of reasoning goes like this: because sex is a special activity, the improper practice of it can cause emotional and psychological harm; thus we must act to restrict the improper practice of it.

The converse line of reasoning does not accept the first premise. It says that by setting up norms governing any activity, you can create the impression that the activity is somehow "special". Someone who violates the norm and engages in the activity suffers emotional distress, but only because breaking norms (on anything) produces emotional distress.

Unfortunately societies do this all the time, and for many activities undertaken in the pants-on configuration. All societies and communities (whether civil or simply associational) establish norms for behaviors they deem required or prohibited (for whatever reason), and the violation of those norms brings emotional distress.

We bring this up because the failure to exclude confounding variables such as normative dissonance is the most common mistake in attempting to study "wrong" behavior and its consequences. So when we look at anecdotal evidence of a young Christian's life ruined by the emotional disaster of extramarital sex, we have to consider carefully what the experience really is an example of.

Fortunately there are professional prostitutes in the United States operating within the law. Not every state outlaws prostitution. I say "fortunately" because these ladies and gentlemen provide a sample in which to study the pure effects alleged to arise from prostitution without the confounding variables that would stymie research efforts that had to contend with people operating outside the law and unregulated.

Fine, let's not use a hypothetical. Kite Flying.

You just changed my whole perspective on Utah liquor laws.

Are we really that worse off as a society because we allow people who have an attraction to members of the same sex to do so publically instead of being hidden away? Or ideed are we better off as a society for accepting individuals within it regardless of who they are?

Hoo boy, we're opening worm cans this week at an alarming rate.

I always looked at it like this: People will form whatever kind of family that their emotions dictate. There will be childless mixed-sex couples. There will be single-parent households. There will be same-sex couples with boatloads of children. There will be multiple spouses.

The latter is always a fun topic in Utah. Mormons have a history of non-traditional families -- it's one of the few things almost everyone knows about Mormons that has any basis in truth. When the U.S. government in the 1890s objected, LDS leaders fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. It is extremely sad, in my opinion, that the rhetoric being used by predominantly LDS groups in Utah to prohibit same-sex marriage is almost word-for-word the same rhetoric their pioneer forebears decried as oppressive, unfair, and discriminatory when the Supreme Court applied it against them. How quickly they forget.

There is actually a much deeper fear going on. The current LDS policy on homosexuality is that there is nothing religiously wrong with being homosexual, but homsexual sex is wrong. So any homosexuals who agree to remain celibate are welcome in full fellowship in LDS congregations. Homosexual sex was rejected because it is sex outside of marriage, and those who willfully have sex outside of marriage cannot be Mormons in good standing. That effectively decouples sexuality from sin. It's not a sin to be homosexual; it's just a sin to have sex with someone you're not married to regardless of the sexuality of the participants.

The problem is that Mormons accept civil marriage. If you were married by the justice of the peace in Podunk, Mississippi you are considered married in the eyes of the LDS church. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, then homosexual Mormons would be able to marry under civil authority. This puts the church in a bind. It would either have to recognize such marriages as legitimate, which would alienate a great many Mormons, or reject them, in which case they would have to admit that they really do think homosexuality is a sin. So the LDS church is extremely motivated to oppose same-sex marriage for at least that reason.

But back to the topic of family composition.

Even in Utah there will be families of all different compositions. A stone's throw from the vintner's house on my block lives a nice gay couple. They are pillars of the neighborhood. They are courteous and law abiding. They jointly care for the nephew of one of the men, who is enjoying the most stable and loving home life he has ever seen in his short life. In all respects but one they are as much a family as their LDS next-door neighbors. That one respect is the protection of the law and the recognition of society.

Mormons are often accustomed to thinking of modern polygamists as those nutty people who live down on the Utah-Arizona border and who marry off their underage daughters to lecherous old men. But unfortunately that's just the vocal segment. A great many Utah polygamists live quiet, normal lives in and around Salt Lake City. They are responsible citizens, having regular jobs and raising families, marrying at appropriate ages and as directed by the conscience of the participants. I once wrote a very facetious essay, "How to Recognize Polygamists From Quite a Long Way Away" in homage to the Monty Python sketch of similar name. Yes, if you know what you are looking for you can recognize a real-live Utah polygamist by certain elements of dress, grooming, and manner. And yes, I know some of them personally and know them to be men and women of unimpeachable integrity and of surprisingly scrupulous morality. They do, unfortunately, have to take great pains to conform to Utah law as it applies to their lifestyle.

The point (at long last) is that even people in Utah will actually compose their families according to the dictates of their conscience, and according to attractions that actually arise and flourish despite what the law says and despite what others believe to be acceptable.

It always irks me to hear opponents of same-sex marriage invoke a supposed rhetoric of "family values" -- which is (as nearly as I can tell) a euphemism for right-wing conservative social policy. If we're going to talk about "family values" let's talk about the families as they are actually composed, not as someone says they should be composed. When we propose an artificially narrow view of what constitutes a family, we push those "non-traditional" families out onto the fringe. We deprive them of the benefits of social acceptance (it does take a village) and of legal protection and responsibility. I simply want to know why "family values" don't include all de facto families.

And the other irksome reference is to the preservation of "traditional" ways of life. An unbelievably large percentage of the rhetoric on this point is simply a variation of, "That's the way we've always thought of marriage." Not only is this patently false (e.g., divorce policy, mixed-race marriages), it's not sufficient grounds to make a law -- much less to enshrine that law in the most powerful legal instrument in our land.

We spoke earlier in this thread about what we should think about when considering a law against some action. We agreed that there has to be a significant potential for harm in doing the action, and that such potential should be weighed against the potential benefit that action brings up. The only potential harm I see on this issue is the threat to some people's notions of the good life. If the best arguments people can come up with is simply that marriage is "traditionally" is composed certain way, then I say it has fallen far short of identifying any actual harm even if a case could be made for that argument. When the benefit is the legal and social recognition of family units that already exist, to me the decision is clear. The law should not forbid same-sex marriage.

If various people want to continue to oppose it or not recognize it, then let them. We cannot change their beliefs, only the law. And let them take individual responsibility for the consequences of those beliefs. As it stands, it seems some people want to use the law of the land to put out of sight (and therefore out of mind) uncomfortable truths.

[JayUtah]

Darn, my browser ate a very nice response to this.

And that would suggest a basis for your beliefs something other than either existing law or religion.

Yes. In many cases either religion or secular authority or both offer some "out" to those with otherwise irreconcilable objections. The presumption of comptability doesn't always hold, though. American democracy and modern Christianity are compatible enough that we can ignore the rough edges. But such hasn't always been the case with other faiths and governments.

You have to look somewhere else besides the law to come up with the laws in the first place, of course.

Yes. Rather than a blank Constitution, a blank Declaration of Independence is usually a better start.

T. Jefferson rather transparently reproduced some of the common thinking of his age regarding where rights and duties ultimately derive. He espouses a "natural law" and "natural right" approach, claiming that the primary responsibility of government is to safeguard these rights. While nature gives rise to them, it falls to humans and their government to recognize and enforce them.

But not all that government can do necessarily derives from Nature. Therefore it falls to us to maintain the distinction between natural law and "positive" law. The government is free to enact both, but only natural laws can be said to derive from absolute or ulterior authority.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a natural law. The government enacts and enforces laws against murder because it is their Jeffersonian duty.

"Thou shalt drive on the right-hand side of the road" is a positive law. There is considerable advantage in maintaining order in traffic, and there is ultimately a natural-law underpinning to that need for order. But in actual fact there is no natural-law justification for choosing one side of the road over another as the "correct" side. If one drives on the left in a right-hand country, one has committed malum prohibitum without necessarily being in violation of God's law.

Clearly we cannot do away with positive laws, for a well-ordered society requires them. But in posturing certain positive laws as if they were natural laws, we can often run roughshod over people. That is what we must avoid.

but to provide them the room to build as good a life as possible without infringing on others' attempts to do the same.

And it's always fun when someone's idea of the good life is someone else's idea of a mortal sin.

You have to suffer the consequences.

This was one of the great unknowns in the introduction of democracy in the 18th century. It was based on the then-heretical notion that even the common man could possess enough nobility and maturity to accept responsibility for his actions, or for unfortunate circumstances. If the comman man proved unequal to that task, democracy would respond by oppressive and intractable systems of law governing every case.

...we do force our fellow citizens to pay for it.

That's the big problem with public finance. The res pubblica may engage in activity to which I am morally opposed, but I have no recourse to prevent my resources from contributing to that. Conversely the res pubblica may outlaw an activity for which I see no harm. And my share of resources will go toward enforcing the laws against it.

The latter is a perennial debate topic: should society's resources be expended toward enforcing laws against victimless crimes? The underlying argument is often positive versus natural law.

But in the larger sense, the use of government as a sort of clearinghouse for public resources -- gathering from all eligible sources and distributing to all worthy causes -- has become far too convenient. The problems are two-fold: American government is constrained by the Constitution to behave a certain way, and the collection of resources is compulsory.

We can work out terms among ourselves, draw up contracts, and agree to pay for arbitration if there are disputes in the future.

And this exists, in large measure. In my capacity as a landlord I am bound by Utah's laws governing tenants and landlords. The "default" conditions of these sorts of contracts are embodied in statutory law. A sheet of notebook paper stating my name, the tenant's name, the amount of rent, the location of the property, and the length of the lease would be considered a valid contract as soon as we affixed our signatures. Statues cover everything else.

Many elements of the civil code are simply the most commonly arising relationships between people.

[Jason]

And I'm going to have to curtail my comments. It started as a cure for boredom, but the boredom is gone and I may not have time to finish what I started.

I'm amazed you've written as much as you have Jay. I've exhausted the time I have to spend on the forum at the moment, so if I get to writing responses to some of the stuff you've already posted it's going to be a while.

There is actually a much deeper fear going on. The current LDS policy on homosexuality is that there is nothing religiously wrong with being homosexual, but homosexual sex is wrong. So any homosexuals who agree to remain celibate are welcome in full fellowship in LDS congregations. Homosexual sex was rejected because it is sex outside of marriage, and those who willfully have sex outside of marriage cannot be Mormons in good standing. That effectively decouples sexuality from sin. It's not a sin to be homosexual; it's just a sin to have sex with someone you're not married to regardless of the sexuality of the participants.

The problem is that Mormons accept civil marriage. If you were married by the justice of the peace in Podunk, Mississippi you are considered married in the eyes of the LDS church. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, then homosexual Mormons would be able to marry under civil authority. This puts the church in a bind. It would either have to recognize such marriages as legitimate, which would alienate a great many Mormons, or reject them, in which case they would have to admit that they really do think homosexuality is a sin. So the LDS church is extremely motivated to oppose same-sex marriage for at least that reason.

I think your understanding of the LDS position is imperfect. Homosexual acts are regarded as sin by the LDS church, and that is apart from the fact that they also require sex outside of marriage.
We can tolerate "celibate" homosexuals pretty much because we don't believe people are homosexuals, only that some people engage in homosexual behavior.

To me, saying we tolerate celibate homosexuals would be like saying we tolerate celibate adulterers.

And you can repent for having committed homosexual acts just as you can repent for adultery, and be accepted back into full fellowship in the church in the same manner.

Yeah, I know I'm about to get flamed a lot for this.

[JayUtah]

The comment was made on national television by M. Russell Ballard, who I believe is still an LDS apostle. It was specifically made in response to a question from the interviewer asking why Mormons continue to consider homosexuality a sin when it has been accepted by all relevant science that homosexuals can't "change their stripes," as it were. The differentiation was clear to me anyway. I realize that Mr. Ballard cannot set church policy by himself, but he was, at the time, the church's media spokesman. I have no reason to believe he was speaking on his own authority.

Consider also this: "Unfortunately, many in our society, including many Mormons, failt o distinguish between homosexual feelings and homosexual activity, condemning both as sinful--sometimes in ways that are ignorant, intolerant, certainly unChristian." (Eugene England in Ron Show, et al., Peculiar People, p. 279) After chiding homosexuals for often holding the polarized opposite view, he says, "I think both positions are wrong and that LDS scriptures and church leaders are right when they make no judgment of homosexual feeling but speak out on homosexual intercourse." Dr. England is not a religious authority, but since he is a professor at BYU I presume he is well versed in church policy and doctrine.

[Jason]

You are correct that admitting to homosexual feelings isn't condemned by the church.
Elder Ballard is indeed an Apostle.
I did a quick search on the chruch's website to see if I could find any particular writings of Elder Ballard concerning homosexuality, but all I found was his mention of "homosexual relations" as one of the serious transgressions which can require a church disciplinary council in a talk by him about such councils.
Googling for "Elder Ballard" and "Homosexuality" is likely to lead you to a bunch of anti-mormon sites rather than anything really informative.

[JayUtah]

I know better than to Google for that sort of thing and expect a reliable response. As I said, I don't rely on second-hand information when it comes to religion. This was an interview he conducted for television at least ten years ago and I watched it on television. I hope I can find some objective reference to it. The reporter really wanted to know the precise reason for the LDS opposition to homosexuality, and the response was quite clearly, "Because it constitutes sex outside of marrage." I remember the nature of the question and answer quite clearly because I thought at the time, "You know, that line of reasoning is really going to be a problem if same-sex marriage were ever to happen." Are there two Ballards who are Mormon authorities? I hope I've named the right one. He was, at the time, the church's official spokesman to the media in addition to being an apostle -- or rather, the apostle designated as the one who deals with media questions.

I should not post at 6:30 on a Saturday morning because the other quote from Prof. England actually aligns better with your understanding than with mine. I wasn't thinking at the time.

Dunno if it's wise to keep harping on controversial and divisive subjects. I know homosexual relations are a serious offense among Mormons, but is the reason for that because they are between two people of the same sex, or because they occur outside of marrage? See, if it's the former then the thing that makes the act bad is the same-genderedness of the participants, which makes it splitting hairs to argue that the feelings are okay but the actions are not. If instead it's the notion that it's sex outside of marriage that makes it bad, as I believe is the case, then the best thing to do is to let same-sex couples marry.

It's sort of an extension of Pauline notions of marriage. Paul was against marriage. (Some people believe that's because he had an apocalyptic worldview, but who cares?) Even so, he agreed that celibacy was generally not a practical thing, so he advocated marriage for those who couldn't stay celibate.

I actually spend the middle of the day today in company that included a number of LDS "general authorities", but the circumstances were such that a conversation on this point of doctrine and policy would not have been appropriate.

I think the LDS church's policy (or at least the widely held belief of its members) is that homosexual behavior is inherently wrong. But since that is not a popular opinion to hold, the church (or members of it) will try to spin the belief in a way that makes it seem less egregiously antisocial. So whatever the church's stated policy may have been ten years ago, I think the social conditions today compel the church to take the moral stand they should have done before. I would expect the church to "come clean" about what it really believes and why.

[Jason]

As far as I know there is one M. Russell Ballard who is an apostle. There may be other general authorities who are also named Ballard.

The LDS church has been firm that homosexual behavior is a serious sin and that those who engage in homosexual acts and refuse to repent are excommunicated from the chruch.
Is it necessary for them to come up with further reasoning behind this? You took me to task a little while ago, Jay, for presenting a secular reason for condemning prostitution instead of just saying "because God said so."

[Jason]

What is so harmful about shopping on Sunday?

I don't really view sabbath-day observance as a moral prohibition. Rather than saying "You've done a moral wrong if you shop on Sunday" I beleive God is saying "It's good for you to devote one day of the week to worship. Here's how you should go about doing that - avoid shopping, don't do any strenuous work, come to church on that day, etc." Sunday just happen to be the day most Christians have accepted as the sabbath.
Someone who has made a covenant to God to observe a sabbath day will be breaking a covenant if they fail to do so, and that could be viewed as a moral wrong, but I don't believe for instance that non-Christians in China are engaging in a moral sin when they shop on Sunday.

[JayUtah]

As far as I know there is one M. Russell Ballard who is an apostle.

I think I know the source of the confusion. Mr. Ballard is often misnamed "Russell M. Ballard" in quotation, possibly a confusion with Russell M. Nelson who is also an LDS apostle. The "M" and the "Russell" appear routinely transposed, but there is only one apostle surnamed Ballard, and he was, at the time, the church's official spokesman to the media.

This is a careful distinction. A single apostle can pronounce doctrine no more than a single congressman can create a law. That is, just because an apostle says something doesn't necessarily make it the doctrine of the church or the LDS church's official interpretation. The appropriate governing bodies must act as a group in order for their statements to be considered authoritative.

However a single apostle may represent the group in publicizing those decisions. Mr. Ballard, acting in his capacity as the individual chosen to portray the church's position on various topics to the media, can be considered authoritative on this point. The only factor then is in determining what he actually said, which is the important premise upon which my points largely hang.

The LDS church has been firm that homosexual behavior is a serious sin and that those who engage in homosexual acts and refuse to repent are excommunicated from the chruch.

That is abundantly clear, and I don't mean to suggest it is otherwise, nor necessarily that it should be otherwise. Mormons are free to believe whatever they want on the subject of homosexuality and its interaction with what they understand Christian doctrine to be.

Is it necessary for them to come up with further reasoning behind this?

The question is less whether they need to than it is whether they already have. And if my recollection is correct, they have. And having done so, they may be in for a pound when in for a penny would actually have been more defensible.

It is well known that Mormons oppose homosexuality, and that the LDS church has for many years had a zero-tolerance policy for homosexual behavior.[1] However, if the church leaders go further rhetorically and explain what precise points of doctrine homosexual violate, then we can explore that logically with other doctrinal points.

Most of the prohibitions against sexual activity derive from the LDS doctrine that sexual intercourse is intended by God to be for procreation. From that follows that sexual activity not intended toward procreation is not allowed. But the church has steadfastly refrained from specifying which activities specifically are allowed and which others specifically are forbidden. The Mormon elders do not stick their noses in the bedrooms of faithful Mormons to legislate what can and can't be done.

This is especially important when LDS couples cannot, for various reasons, procreate. Such reasons include biological inability and legal limits on family size in countries where some Mormons live (e.g., China). We know that LDS couples too old to bear and rear children may continue to have sexual relations. We know that LDS couples biologically unable to reproduce may "go through the motions" with the church's full blessing. We know that LDS couples whose physiology, whether through defect or injury, does not allow normal sexual activity can still engage in whatever sexual activity lies within their nature. (I personally know Mormons that fall into each of these categories and can report what they told me they had been counseled to do. If you know of official policy to the contrary, now would be the time to mention it.)

From this we might gather that while sex is intended toward procreation, there are times in which procreation is otherwise impossible or forbidden, and that so long as procreation is still the intent of the activity, the activity is allowed.

But Mormons also allow sex in marriages where the couples choose not to procreate. One of my closest friends is a Mormon elder in good standing (he even sings in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) and he has elected to undergo a vasectomy after fathering four boys. Mormons may also use contraceptives any time they feel it is prudent to do so.

Hence the doctrine that sex is intended for procreation is clearly not an absolute, nor is the only exception the impossibility of pregnancy for other reasons. Mormon married couples can have sex for pleasure without offending God or the church. In those cases we are to understand that sexual activity is appropriate as an expression of love and intimacy between couples so joined. This is more in line with liberal Christian doctrine and much of society's belief.

Nor, incidentally, does Mormon doctrine regard marriage solely as an institution in which to bear and raise children, which is a commonly given reason for opposing same-sex marriage. The LDS church allows marriages in which child-rearing is either impossible or simply not the reason for the marriage. In fact, marriage for financial stability was one of the original reasons given for polygamous marriage.

Our next step is to examine where the church has drawn the line on homosexuality. I understand that one can be a Mormon in good standing if one has homosexual attractions, so long as they are never acted upon. The attraction itself is not sinful so long as lustful thoughts are avoided and no steps are taken to have any contant with people of the same sex that would be construed as sexually motivated.

Homosexual activity is forbidden. The question then is what about the activity violates the Mormon understanding of proper behavior.

If it is the fact that it occurs outside of marriage, then that puts fornicators Bobby and Alice in the same general category as Bobby and Billy. Rather than express those feelings within God's institution of marriage, each couple succumbed to carnal desires and indulged their hormones. If Bobby and Alice had been married, the church would have considered the same hormonal indulgence (whether or not pregnancy was ever in the cards) none of its business. So then the question follows whether Bobby and Billy should enjoy the same indifference should they have somehow been married.

If this is the Mormon position (as I believe it is), then it should make sense to legalize same-sex marriage, for then it would provide a framework in which same-sex couples could make the same sorts of commitments and undertake the same sorts of responsibility (whether in society or in the eyes of God) as their mixed-sex companions.

As I said, Paul told us that marriage was the safety valve for horny people who couldn't manage celibacy for their whole lives. (Okay, Paul put it more tactfully, but we all know that's what he's talking about.) If you can't keep your pants zipped, at least choose one partner and stick by him/her. I think that should be allowed for same-sex attractions too.

See, the problem is that many Mormons I know, and many people at large, see homosexuals as nothing more than sexual hedonists, having as much sex as they can with as many people as they can. Part of that perception derives from there being no equivalent to heterosexual marriage in our society. You can't say that one segment of the population behaves radically differently than another (whether it's true or not) if there are imposed restrictions on exactly that behavior that differ between groups -- and especially if you're the one imposing the restrictions. It's a circular line of reasoning. The notion of monogamous same-sex couples escapes the vision of many people who don't want to see it.

But coming back to the point, Mormons don't seem to see anything wrong with sex itself, just sex outside of marriage.

But if, on the other hand, we presume that Mormons would have a problem with sexual activity between partners of the same sex, even if marriage between them were allowed, then we have to revisit the rail split above -- the one differentiating homosexual feelings from homosexual activity.

If the same-sexedness of the activity is what makes the activity wrong, then this is fundamentally the same as saying that homosexual feelings are wrong. It's saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't behave a certain way toward each other, and it's not because of the inherent nature of the behavior but because the people are of the same sex. So the church can't on the one hand say that God doesn't see anything in same-sex attraction that requires repentance, but that same-sex activity is a heinous sin, without having to navigate that rail-split.

The rail split comes from the notion that sexual urges for the opposite sex can be satisifed as long as one simply waits for marriage. Sexual urges toward the same sex, however, can never been satisfied. Ever. Do you see the difference?

Again, this all hinges on whether my recollection of a television program broadcast something like ten years ago is accurate. So this amounts to a conditional argument. Don't mistake anything I say above or below for an attempt to "convert the conditional".

Now from here on out I'm blatantly speculating.

I believe the LDS church is opposed to homosexuality because of institutional tradition (although its formal policy dates only back to about the 1960s). As conservative Christians they "naturally" oppose it and believe that God opposes it based on interpreting various scriptures in a way not unlike other churches. But now that psychologists are more of the opinion that homosexuality is something that can be changed and may be inherent to the human condition, it is becoming less acceptable to consider homosexuals as "sinners". And so the LDS church tried to walk a narrow, fuzzy line between the urges and the actions, which is unpalatable because it's not very logically tenable. And so they took the opportunity to offer the straw man of homosexual behavior being sex outside of marriage and disallowed for that reason. And that makes sense given the LDS special treatment of marrage and their strong commitment to the integral family. I'll bet that the Mormon leadership didn't consider same-sex marriage to be a near-term proposition either and so thought this would be a workable rationale for quite some time: it would avoid the social problems of labeling homosexuals as sinners or trying to tap-dance around feelings-versus-actions debates and it would allow faithful Mormons to retain their long-standing homophobia, thus retaining membership. Let's face it, if the President and the apostles suddenly announced a revelation that homosexuals were welcome in full faith into the church, celibate or not, then Mormons would leave the church droves.

That's my speculation anyway. Now the church faces a crisis from another quarter -- same-sex marriage looks like it may be a possibility in our time. If there were same-sex marriage the LDS church would be harder pressed to continue to justify its current stand on homosexuality from a social standpoint. They already get quite a lot of flak from gay rights groups and so far they have stood their ground.

You took me to task a little while ago, Jay, for presenting a secular reason for condemning prostitution instead of just saying "because God said so."

But those aren't equivalent arguments. I don't expect you to come up with a secular argument relating to homosexuality. Many have, but you have not. And to my knowledge, neither has the LDS church. They seem to base their position on homosexuality strictly on the notion that this is how they interpret Christian canon and their own authoritative sources. Although I speculate they have phrased their responses in deference to secular knowledge on homosexuality, or in indirect response to it, the church has not, to my knowledge, addressed any of the secular claims being made whether to endorse or dispute them. This seems to be a case of the church standing firm on principle.

So there is no need to bring up a secular argument. However, I believe I am within the bounds of propriety to examine the church's doctrine for logical soundness, which means that if the church's statements have some sort of logical inconsistency, then they should be asked to reconcile them. In any belief system there are the fundamental principles -- axioms or postulates or things taken on faith -- and then a host of inferred principles that are taken as being extensions of those principles into specific cases.

For example, the notion that Mormons should not drink caffeine: it is well known that Mormons don't drink coffee or tea, and it is generally accepted that this is because these drinks contain large amounts of caffeine. For a while there was some controversy over whether the doctrine also forbade consuming anything with caffeine. Eventually, I believe, it was resolved by saying that the doctrine meant only coffee and tea specifically for no special reason. Yet still whenever I go to BYU for some function I have to bring my own Diet Coke. The church does not, under its auspices, provide any foodstuff containing a significant amount of caffeine.

The point is not whether caffeine is allowed or forbidden, but whether such "inferred" doctrines are to be considered binding. If Mormons (like everyone else) take as binding doctrines that are logically inferred from more canonical forms, then we can legitimately hold them responsible for logical problems among key doctrines and their inferences. Logic is either part of Mormon doctrine-making or it is not. If it is, then we can examine whether their various statements on homosexuality are logically consistent and ask for a reconciliation if they are not.

Now as I said, neither you nor the church has offered any argument forbidding homosexual practice that makes any empirically testable claim or any scientific or secular conclusion. It is simply defined as the dogma of the church under no better authority than the statements of the presiding councils. No further authority is strictly necessary.

However when we discussed prostitution it was with different ends in mind, and according to slightly different rhetorical tack. We brought up prostitution as an example of a civil law that might be thought of differently if notions of morality were set aside. You brought up the notion that prostitution, being only a special case of adultery, caused "psychological problems", which is a case you would have to make on the basis of science. But if such a case could be made, then it would constitute a more universally valid reason for outlawing prostitution than would simple moral indignation.

If the church wants to say that same-sex marriage is not compatible with their vision of marriage, that's their business. Because marriage is simultaneously an civil and a religious thing, the church's comments are material and valuable. However, when the church meddles in civil government to stop it happening, I think that has overstepped the bounds of separating church and state. The church should not be in the business of denying civil rights to people simply on the grounds that they have a religious belief to the contrary. And so if the church wishes to make a case that civil government should forbid same-sex marriage, then they will have to present a secular case for it.

Again, the problem is that the LDS church has given up some of its authority. Normally Mormons accept as valid religious ceremonies only those that are performed by duly designated LDS authorities. One cannot be a baptized Baptism and have that recognized as valid in the LDS church. The one notable exception is marriage. Although Mormons marry under their own authority, a couple married by civil authority is considered married for purposes of LDS doctrine and discipline. A couple need not be remarried under Mormon rules in order to be considered married. They are not living in sin.

This is highly significant because it is thus LDS doctrine that two people who simply present themselves to the justice of the peace and sign a legal document are recognized by God as being married. Sexual activity between them is not considered adultery. So here is a case in which civil authority is able to decide whether one is a sinner or not under Mormon rules. That gives the church a vested interest in what civil authority does. And that makes them a party to that debate, not just a moral adviser.

[1] I will, however, recount a rather humorous experience. A "ward" in LDS terminology is equivalent to a parish, both words deriving from political districting terminology in the American South. While on extended business travel I attended, as the guest of a friend, the San Francisco Bay Ward of the LDS church for a few weekly meetings. I learned that the unofficial nickname for the Bay Ward is the "Gay Ward", and that it was visibly composed largely of members apparently of the same-sex persuasion. Whether any of them was actually attending dishonestly (i.e., as a unrepentant practicing homosexual) I cannot say, but from then onward I have referred to that particular LDS enclave as "God's fabulous people". I have to say that the combination of uncanny fashion sense in the gay community and the availability of designer materials made for a distinctly well-appointed meeting place. Never in all of Mormondom -- including at funerals for Mormon presidents -- have I seen such impeccably arranged flowers!

[Jason]

This is a careful distinction. A single apostle can pronounce doctrine no more than a single congressman can create a law. That is, just because an apostle says something doesn't necessarily make it the doctrine of the church or the LDS church's official interpretation. The appropriate governing bodies must act as a group in order for their statements to be considered authoritative.

I'm glad you understand this Jay - many of the church's critics will use anything said by any apostle or other church leader as ammunition, regardless of whether what they said was an authoritative pronouncement of church doctrine.

However a single apostle may represent the group in publicizing those decisions. Mr. Ballard, acting in his capacity as the individual chosen to portray the church's position on various topics to the media, can be considered authoritative on this point. The only factor then is in determining what he actually said, which is the important premise upon which my points largely hang.

Unfortunately I fear finding this particular statement may be impossible. The church website is probably the best place to look for past church publications and statements by church leaders that the church considers authoritative, but I haven't found this one.

The question is less whether they need to than it is whether they already have. And if my recollection is correct, they have. And having done so, they may be in for a pound when in for a penny would actually have been more defensible.

Well, rather than trying to track down a particular statement that you half-remember from ten years ago prehaps we should look for other official statements on the issue to clarify what the church's actual position is.

Most of the prohibitions against sexual activity derive from the LDS doctrine that sexual intercourse is intended by God to be for procreation.

The statements I've found simply say that sexual intercourse is intended to be had only in marriage, not that it is intended only for procreation. Obviously procreation is one God-intended purpose of it, and probably the most important one, but I don't recall any statements that that is the only reason behind it.

But if, on the other hand, we presume that Mormons would have a problem with sexual activity between partners of the same sex, even if marriage between them were allowed, then we have to revisit the rail split above -- the one differentiating homosexual feelings from homosexual activity.

Perhaps it's worth noting that Incest is also forbidden by the LDS church. That would indicate that the LDS church does not consider any sexual activity, so long as it happens within a marriage to be moral.
In fact the church has spoken out against "Vegas Marriages" - a situation where two people go and get married in order to have sex, and then are divorced immediately after. The church has stated that in the eyes of God such individuals actually committed adultery, no matter their actual legal status at the time, and they are subject to church discipline.

If the same-sexedness of the activity is what makes the activity wrong, then this is fundamentally the same as saying that homosexual feelings are wrong.

The church does state that homosexual feelings are wrong and should be avoided, but the church only disciplines people for their actions - not their feelings. Hence my comment about celibate adulterers. No doubt many church members are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex who are not their spouses. The church encourages it's members to control these impulses as much as they are able, but will not discipline someone for admitting to having these feelings.

The rail split comes from the notion that sexual urges for the opposite sex can be satisifed as long as one simply waits for marriage. Sexual urges toward the same sex, however, can never been satisfied. Ever. Do you see the difference?

Yes I do.
However, marriage is not viewed by the church as being solely to releive sexual urges.

But now that psychologists are more of the opinion that homosexuality is something that can be changed and may be inherent to the human condition, it is becoming less acceptable to consider homosexuals as "sinners".

It is the church's position that homosexuality is something that can be changed and is not inherent. I have found a statement on this - the September 1999 Ensign article "When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction".

And so the LDS church tried to walk a narrow, fuzzy line between the urges and the actions, which is unpalatable because it's not very logically tenable. And so they took the opportunity to offer the straw man of homosexual behavior being sex outside of marriage and disallowed for that reason.

Except that we have yet to find a statement that says "homosexual behavior is banned by the church because it requires sex outside of marraige." I'll grant that some of the statements I've read in researching the topic a bit do seem to imply that this is a reason, but none of them ever state that this is the only reason for banning it.

Let's face it, if the President and the apostles suddenly announced a revelation that homosexuals were welcome in full faith into the church, celibate or not, then Mormons would leave the church droves.

History doesn't support that speculation. In 1978 a revelation was received by the church leadership that all worthy males of the church would be allowed to receive the preisthood, reversing a policy that had until that time prevented blacks from receiving it. Although some left the church it was not "droves".
A similar situation existed in 1890, when polygamy was discontinued. Some did leave the church, and splinter groups exist today that refused to give up the practice, but again they were not "droves".
There is a difference in these two. The ban against blacks receiving the preisthood was viewed as a condition that would someday be lifted, and was. In contrast, polygamy was thought of as a permanent doctrine until the revelation revoking it was received.

If there were same-sex marriage the LDS church would be harder pressed to continue to justify its current stand on homosexuality from a social standpoint. They already get quite a lot of flak from gay rights groups and so far they have stood their ground.

I can well believe that pressure will increase. I don't believe the LDS church's viewpoint will change on this issue.

For example, the notion that Mormons should not drink caffeine: it is well known that Mormons don't drink coffee or tea, and it is generally accepted that this is because these drinks contain large amounts of caffeine. For a while there was some controversy over whether the doctrine also forbade consuming anything with caffeine. Eventually, I believe, it was resolved by saying that the doctrine meant only coffee and tea specifically for no special reason. Yet still whenever I go to BYU for some function I have to bring my own Diet Coke. The church does not, under its auspices, provide any foodstuff containing a significant amount of caffeine.

The controversy was resolved in saying that caffeine is not the only reason to avoid coffee or tea, but the general thought of the church is that it's not good to get addicted to anything (as you said, too much of anything is not good for you) and therefore that caffeine is not particularly healthy, even if it is not banned outright.

Again, the problem is that the LDS church has given up some of its authority. Normally Mormons accept as valid religious ceremonies only those that are performed by duly designated LDS authorities. One cannot be a baptized Baptism and have that recognized as valid in the LDS church. The one notable exception is marriage. Although Mormons marry under their own authority, a couple married by civil authority is considered married for purposes of LDS doctrine and discipline. A couple need not be remarried under Mormon rules in order to be considered married. They are not living in sin.

You are correct that a civil marriage is seen as allowing people to engage in sex with one another without sin, but the other benefits of a temple-marriage are not granted. Most LDS would see a civil marriage as laying a foundation for a temple-marriage. Effectively, the participants are allowed to be considered married by the church with the idea that they are working for a temple-marriage.

This is highly significant because it is thus LDS doctrine that two people who simply present themselves to the justice of the peace and sign a legal document are recognized by God as being married. Sexual activity between them is not considered adultery. So here is a case in which civil authority is able to decide whether one is a sinner or not under Mormon rules. That gives the church a vested interest in what civil authority does. And that makes them a party to that debate, not just a moral adviser.

I think it's more correct to say that the church recognizes that the two individuals have sanctified their conduct in their own marriage by having had a civil marriage performed for the same reasons a temple-marriage would have been performed had they been capable of having such a ceremony at the time. As I mentioned before concerning "Vegas Marriages", fulfilling the mere letter of the law does not absolve someone from guilt in the eyes of the church.