Too large for a comment

I am leaving town for the weekend and probably won't be getting online much, so I offer some thoughts now. Not very good ones, because I haven't given it a great deal of thought. RANDOM ALERT!!

I think in some respects the plan is a good one. I wonder if the City of Enoch had a similar judge system. It was a community full of religion that succeeded fully in getting everyone translated. What a unique society.

But every society is so completely different. Is there one common goal of society for all societies? Celestial? The same society here will exist there? From a religious standpoint we would say the City of Enoch was ideal. Non-religious people wouldn't say that nor would they believe in a perfect city that was translated. They would envision something different.

We might ask: how would it be for us in another society completely dominated by another religion. We have faced that to some extent. I was in  95% Buddhist country. 4% Muslim and the rest something else. How did that government do with other religions? Decent. But not a hundred years ago.

In some respects in might depend on how close the dominant religion was  to what we term as the true religion. While Buddhism is very different, the basic beliefs are good and entail good living principles. The only problem is getting people to live it. The Thai country would be better off if everyone lived their religion. 

In the D&C (I forget the section) it says that government should protect the exercise of conscience.  What does that mean? Do current governments protect that? Would a completely religious government allow non-believers that protection? In the BoM case, I believe they did.

The High Priest being the Chief Judge? I interviewed a judge in Provo. He probably is a high priest. Wonderful man. I'm not sure I ever felt the spirit so much when interviewing someone or interviewing a secondary source about the primary source. He has strong religious principles and it makes him, in my opinion, one of the best judges possible. He has the Gift of the Holy Ghost and he prays to now what to do. Would you rather have someone using only physical evidence to judge you? Or would you like someone who can ask a higher source to get a better idea.  He told me he meets people all the time that thank him for putting them in jail. He probably made some inspired correct decisions for those people. Other decisions may be inspired for the good of society.  I always thought in the mission field that the Lord puts you in the place where you are needed to help others, but where you can be helped the most too. Dual purpose. Probably that way for judgments. Put the criminal where it will help them best and help society best. Tough to decide, for sure, so I'd rather have heaven's help.

So, in that judge's case I'd say having a judge that is religious works well. That isn't quite what you were asking, but I think it is a benefit to our society. Should all of them be religious? Good question.

Sometimes as people we think things should be static or black and white. That person is ugly or evil. We shift between dichotomies where none should exist or we think some things should be static and non-changing.  While God is unchangeable, he does play ball differently according to what's happening. He commanded Nephi to kill, etc.  The Constitution was not meant to be the final word on government. It was meant to grow as the county grew. Fascinating. What if different types of government are good at different times? Kind of a weird idea I just thought up. In BoM times the judge system and religion intermixed was the best option for them. The City of Enoch had whatever they had. We have ours. We are probably placed in governmental situations that test our faith and agency and will help us somehow. Even bad governments may have a role to play (like bad empires against wicked ancient Israel) The British Empire could be seen as bad because they killed and conquered many people, but because of them Christianity spread far and makes missionary work so much easier. Not so black and white.

So, what if different governments are better for different times? A society that completely adopts an ideology at one point needs different things than a system that adopts 20 ideologies. Just a quick-thought thought.

What should we adopt today? Total religious judge system would provoke uproar, so maybe good LDS people who decide to be judges and do the best they can?  ?

Obviously we live in a day where there are bazillions of ideologies and religions. Totally different than when ancient Israel was with the Egyptians or moved into the desert. Or different than BoM times. We probably need a government that is different. The D&C says the Constitution was given by the Lord. Why didn't he create a Priest/judge system again? Something else needed to protect and test all of his children I guess.

Anyway, total stream of conscious thought junk going on above me. Sorry. Hope some of it is thought provoking and not simply thought vomiting.   KED OUT

Government, cont.

I've got a Gospel Doctrine lesson on Nephite Government (Alma the Younger, King Mosiah, Reign of the Judges, etc.) this next Sunday, and since our last discussion (d)evolved into a discussion about government, I'm curious if any of you have thoughts on the Judges system that I might pilfer for my lesson.

What aspects of Mosiah's plan do you think are good ideas?  What parts wouldn't work?  What about appointing the High Priest to be the first Chief Judge?  Can a government built so solidly on religious principles be accepting of the non- or counter-religious people?

What aspects of the Judges system should we adopt?  Which wouldn't work today?

Man Camp Location

So, Abe and I were discussing man camp locations. Since it is about a month a away I thought we could talk about it again (and I go in phases of writing on the Herd blog and this last while has been one of them).

Abe and I discussed some places over by Escalante. They have slot canyons, arches, etc. Could be a good place to go explore.  OOH. Google Bull Valley Gorge. This is a great place I've wanted to hike since I drove over it. Neato Burrito.

Another option I thought of is Cathedral Gorge State Park. It's not as cool as roughing it somewhere, but imagine exploring the little canyons and crevices at night. Pretty exciting I'd like to think.

These are just some of my thoughts this morning. We could visit some ghost towns or camp in the bottom of the mine out by Milford or....Cedar Mountain....or whatever.

Name the sites you want. Sorry to fill your inboxes.

New Movie?

The guys we hired to do our music for The Device have several cds of music, the latest being Makara, which was released in 2010.

Should we make a new movie and use their music again?  :)

Quick thoughts

Good place to talk about things. I knew we'd come up with very thoughtful...thoughts. Basically a think tank. If we were to continue such a discussion on such a complex topic I guess it would be helpful to have some kind of discussion map where it shows the basic question with other questions stemming from that along with arguments and what not. Hard to keep everything organized in my head and on the screen.

Do we want to keeping discussing this issue? Or move on to evolution?  J/k.

Re: The Great Issue of our Time

What is the question here? Is it an issue of the rightness or wrongness of a particular behavior? Is it a test of how well our personal theories about government coexist with our testimonies of the Restored Gospel and of modern-day prophets, or of our commitment to such?

My thoughts on this issue recently have centered around whether or not a position I hold based on belief should be a position I try to bind to other people in law. my feelings and positions have shifted and changed even over the last few days as I have read and considered everybody's comments. It has really made me think deeply about the interplay between government and religion, and the purpose of government.

If the question is whether or not homosexuality is wrong, my answer is that it is. If the question is whether or not same-sex unions should be legalized under the title "marriage," my answer is also simple: no. My belief should inform my involvement in the democratic process, as well as my own actions and behaviors. I guess I am less Libertarian on this point, as I think that the rules of a community should reflect the values and aspirations of that community.

Why is it illegal to take the life of another person? Because our community ostensibly values every person's life, and believes that each person has a right to live, and we don't want the people we are close to, or ourselves, being killed. We have legislated a value.

Nearly any reasonable person would say that homicide should be illegal because it is, by it's nature, bad. Even a libertarian (I would guess) would say that there ought to be a rule (law) against killing one another, and a means, chosen by the community, of enforcing it (government). There seem to be things that everybody knows are bad, and things that not so many people know are bad, and things that some people say are bad but which others call good. Still more would say that nothing is inherently wrong, because of the temporary nature of existence and lack of meaningful consequences, etc.

How many people have to think something is bad before it deserves to be defined by law as such? How bad does something have to be before it qualifies for its own legislation? Is badness that affects only the doer ever necessary to be made illegal? Can I say that doing bad things makes you a weaker person, less productive to my community, and use that reason to write a law?

We are never (so long as mortals are in charge) going to agree on the basic answers to these questions, let alone the degree to which they should apply. This is exactly the reason we live in the United States of America, because the colonies couldn't agree on a single government, but recognized the value of some common laws and currency. As with most divisive issues, I say let the states decide, and let the Supreme Court Justices get day jobs. If you have a different idea of when life begins than I do, let us not try to "prove it" in the highest court we can find (honestly, that doesn't prove anything), let's agree that there is a possibility we both might be wrong and respect each other anyway, and if I can't stand the sight of your face, I should perhaps go live with people who are more like-minded. If enough of us feel that way, we should do what we can to protect our common ideals and, if necessary, make some laws which apply to our similarly-minded community.

Should it be a goal of government to preserve itself and its people? If you think about America as a sort of being or organism, you can imagine a sort of self-preservation instinct; we avoid things that would hurt us, and seek after what helps us grow and be healthy. Natural and human resources are like food, invaders are like diseases. It seems obvious that we should defend ourselves against an invading army which would damage or make off with our resources, but what about other threats? Moral threats, if unchecked, can damage or destroy the human capital by making them less happy, less efficient, and more dead. Therefore, as Ked pointed out, we have laws against some kinds of behavior. It can be argued (and has been stated by those we consider to be prophets) that the breakdown of the family produces fewer happy and moral people, and that less morality and happiness sickens the country as a whole, threatening our persistence as a society and the well-being of our community. Therefore, we would argue that to preserve the country, we should preserve the family. On this basis I believe I can observe the Bretheren's appeal to "promote [the measures presented in The Family: A Proclamation to the World] designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Then again, if you don't think it's government's job to preserve the country, or that such preservation should not come at the expense of certain personal liberties, that argument is essentially null.

What is difficult about all of this is our (and everybody else's) real, fervent belief in absolute right and wrong. Yes, there are things that are wrong by their nature, and I personally find homosexual behavior to be on the list. However, the principle of stewardship prohibits me from doing much about that belief outside of my own family, and the principle of agency limits what I can do about it outside of my very own self. I just don't think it is right for us to try and coerce our beliefs on others for reasons they will not accept. As James has pointed out, if we try to do so, we should expect nothing less than some good old-fashioned golden rule retribution.

Yes, the prophets hold stewardship over the Earth to teach and warn, and yes, we ought to follow them in promoting the value of the family, but we can do it charitably, correctly utilizing the power we each have as citizens, recognizing that every person has a right far beyond what the government can guarantee to believe and behave how he wants to. If we think that doctrines A or B should be made secular law for the purpose of preserving our society, it has to be done through the mechanisms available, by consensus. For us, it means doing our best to present what we hold to be truth, respecting every person's right to an opinion.

It is futile to present evidence in an argument when both parties do not recognize the validity of the evidence (making religious appeals ineffectual), or when either party is so committed to his position as to be beyond convincing. Therefore, if we are going to convince anybody, we should spend our time talking to somebody who might listen (being ourselves willing to listen), and bring to the table something besides "God said so." We can bring that too, since we believe it to be true, but we should realize it won't advance the argument much.

When people can not agree on the fundamentals of an argument, they stop trying to find out what is right and revert to proving who is wrong and who is evil. You have the religious right saying homosexuality is wrong and will destroy us all because God said so, the liberal left saying it isn't wrong and would you please leave God out of it because He only exists in your imagination, the right responding with threats of brimstone at some certain but unproveable time in the future, the left responding with words like "bigot", and certain "news" organizations make an insane amount of money by capitalizing on (and amplifying) the rhetoric and emotion, further preventing any useful dialogue.

Anyway, back to my question about the relationship between my beliefs and our laws. Homosexuality is wrong. I would say I know that to be an unalterable truth. Others disagree. Based on the fact that we disagree, it would seem to be imprudent to pass a law in one direction or the other because such a law would impede on somebody's belief -- unless a consensus can be reached that it is wrong or not because:
a) it is against the community's common values, or
b) it threatens the strength and continuity of the community (proven hopefully by strong scientific evidence).


Technically this should be possible. In reality, I don't see it happening on a national level. Whether it is a politically motivated sentiment or not, I think that President Obama's position to leave the issue to the states is the right one.

Because I recognize that we all, as a country, are not going to agree on the issue, I hope we will get to a point that we can continue on in mutual trust and peaceful misunderstanding. I agree with a good many goals of the gay rights movement. I see no good reason to marginalize a person based on what he or she decides to do with whomever behind their closed doors when it has no bearing or reflection on the person's intelligence, dedication, or ability. There's no reason to deny a person a job simply because he is gay. I recognize that it is human nature to be wary of that which is different or not well understood, but I will sure do my best to try see beyond that irrational fear. I also think that two people who care for each other deeply and are concerned for one another's well-being should be granted the right to be there for one another, in a hospital for example. A simplistic assessment of the legal ramifications being discussed, perhaps, but hopefully a good expression of my feelings.

Because I listen to NPR, much of the discussion I hear seems to assume that the issue of the morality of same-sex marriage is a settled one, and that the smarter and more educated folk are just waiting for the rest of us to catch up with the times, as if we were on opposite sides of the civil rights movement we learned about in school. I rather resent this characterization because it casts an automatic light of Dr. King and the Freedom Riders on the one side, and makes people imagine that my friends and I party while wearing pointy white hats. This is just not true. If we could talk like humans to one another, somebody might find out that I don't want anybody dead. I don't want anybody riding in the back of the bus if they don't want to. I don't want anybody to be disrespected (including myself) because we don't agree. I'm not going to say that I think AIDS is a plague sent from God to destroy the wicked (how would I know if it were?). I want you to have a good job. I want you to be happy. I don't want to tell you how you have to be happy, but if you want to talk about it I will sure try to explain why I feel the way I do.

My point in a nutshell: We disagree. That's fine. Let's all honestly, humbly, and respectfully find the best ways to strengthen and protect ourselves, our families, and our society.

One last thought: Some people are gay and want to be. Some people are gay and don't want to be, for the simple reason that they just don't want to be. I worry that if this idea that one is the way one is and can't or shouldn't change gets too much traction, we will be discriminating against those who wish to change by limiting their options for doing so. Let's not even argue about whether or not it is possible, but respect a person's desire to try. There are a good many things that people do these days that weren't supposed to be possible, and I think that there may even be a market for treatment if those with resources weren't afraid of being smeared by those who say they are protecting gay rights. I know there are a few things about me that I'd like to change, and that changing those things may be against my innate mortal nature. I'm glad nobody faults me for wanting me to be stronger or more patient. It's about me being the person I want to be, and really, isn't that what this whole rights movement is about?

My take on the subject at hand

Gay marriage has always been a very difficult topic for me.  This is rooted in my philosophical and political views, which have been heavily influenced by stories of the Book or Mormon, the early members of the church, and even modern spiritual giants that I look up to.  I consider myself a very strong libertarian, having decided long ago that the duopoly of our farcical excuse for a political system really only represents two sides of the exact same destructive coin.

As a libertarian, my strongly rooted belief is that we as a people have the right and the liberty to live our lives however we want as long as we don't infringe on that same right for other people.  While that single phrase instantly sums up the central point of libertarianism, the exact application of the idea is of course all but impossible to bring around to universal appeal, even among libertarians.  It comes down to the shades of grey that we associate with the concepts of "liberty", "infringement", etc.

To give a single example, many states have a law that requires motorcyclists to wear a helmet.  In my mind that is a perfect example of a law that directly contradicts libertarian thought, because wether or not I wear a helmet has little to no impact on the liberty or personal safety of other people.  Sure, I will be handing my life into the hands of every driver who passes me in the street and exposing my daughter to the risk of growing up without a father, but my firm belief is that I have the liberty to make this decision on my own rather than have somebody else make that decision for me.

Next in line on a continuum here might be seatbelt laws - there is not a lot of risk to others if I choose not to wear my seatbelt, but if I get in an accident then my not wearing a seatbelt it is definitely a risk to the others in my car.

While on the seatbelt topic, what about the law requiring me to put my child in a car seat?  Is the law requiring me to do so infringing on my liberty, or is my choice to leave a child out of a car seat infringing on the liberty and personal safety of my daughter?

Now that we are on the parenting topic, how much does the government get to mandate about how I raise my child?  Can I take her out of public school and deprive her of the "normal" social experience of suburban America and the government-mandated education system, or is that going to cause her lasting harm that I cannot be allowed to inflict?  Can I hit my child as a parent?  If the answer is yes, what is the difference between a light spanking and a fist to the side of the head?  Is there some measure of foot-pounds of force that CPS will use to determine when I have crossed the line?

I can't really answer all of my own questions in the preceding paragraphs - I don't think the answers about how much governmental control is permissible are very clear cut, and it becomes very hard to draw a line even for me with my own opinions; trying to draw that line for an entire country full of people seems ridiculous.  Nonetheless, that is where the debate on gay marriage centers in my mind.

I do NOT see gay marriage as a debate on morality, as a debate on the definition of marriage, or a debate on anything other than the question of how much influence the legal system can have on our own lives.  If I decide that I want to ride my motorcycle around without a helmet, I think I should be able to do so.  If somebody wants to beat their kids to within an inch of their lives, I believe that the government has a right and a duty to stop them from causing permanent harm to their children.  If somebody wants to rob a bank, I believe that the government has the duty and obligation to stop that infringement on the rights and liberties of other people.  I am not an anarchist that believes everything goes, but I am not a totalitarian who believes that George Orwell had the right idea either.  So - where in this continuum does the governments ability to decide who I marry fit in?

For me the answer is still "I don't know for sure", but I have to confess that I lean towards the side of saying that the government has no business dictating who I marry.

How many members of the LDS church believe that plural marriage should be legal?  I think most of us believe that the government overstepped their bounds when they dictated that plural marriage was not allowed, especially since God explicitly authorizes it time and time again throughout history and had authorized it at the time that it was outlawed in the 1800's.  If this is the case, what is the difference between each of the following "definitions" of marriage?:

1. Marriage between a man and a woman
2. Marriage between a woman and multiple men
3. Marriage between a man and multiple women
4. Marriage between a man and a man
5. Marriage between a man and multiple women, some of them under the age of 12

Interestingly, each time somebody promotes one of these definitions at the expense of one or more of the others, it usually centers around a particular religious perspective (or lack thereof).  If we interpret the separation of church and state to mean that our religious beliefs and the personal choices of how we live our lives should be separate from the mandates we put on others, then I think that most of the reason or motive for legally defining marriage one way or the other disappears.  To return to my earlier point, my opinion is that the debate is not (or shouldn't be) "Which of the above definitions is correct, and which one is not?"; instead the real question is (or at least should be) "Who is allowed to determine which of the above definitions is correct, and force those determinations upon me?"

Let me flip the argument on its head, in what might be seen as an unfair comparison: purely as an intellectual exercise, what if one day the government determined that marriage between a man and a woman was legally invalid, and that all entities would be required to recognize that fact?  We would all consider it an infringement on our rights, and we would all be out picketing and demanding change and doing whatever else we would deem necessary to turn it around.  We would claim persecution, we would lobby to change the law so we could live the way we wanted, and we would do whatever we felt necessary to live according to our beliefs.

If we claim that we can dictate how somebody lives because of our religious perspectives, what stops somebody else from doing the same with a different set of religious beliefs?  This is about infringing liberty, not about following a particular belief set - our ability to practice our beliefs is defined by our adherence to the principals of liberty, not the other way around; religion and defining marriage and everything else just gets pulled in to justify or explain ones placement of the line defining what a government is allowed to do in our lives and what they are not allowed to do.  If we believe that it was wrong for people to use religious motives to outlaw polygamous marriage 150 years ago, why is it OK for us to outlaw homosexual marriage today because of our religious beliefs?

To be perfectly clear, I believe that marriage was ordained of God, and that it is between man and woman.  I believe that people who contradict that ordination are in violation of Gods law, and will be held accountable for it.  However, just as I would not want somebody to legally define marriage in a way contrary to my beliefs, so I do not think it is my right to legally define it according to my beliefs if they contradict somebody else's or if they infringe on their liberty.

I believe that religion has no place in defining what I am legally allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do.  I believe that I, just like the rest of Gods children on this earth, have certain inalienable rights - among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I also believe in the rights of others to worship how, where, or what they may.  I think that this extends beyond which building we all enter into each Sunday, and defines all aspects our our worship or lack thereof.  Otherwise we have to acknowledge a middle-eastern style supposed theocracy, just one that happens to subscribe to our beliefs rather than those of the Muslim religion.

To conclude this long, rambling, and probably incoherent post: someday the church may come out and officially state that to be in good standing with the church we must not only oppose the idea of homosexual marriage on a personal and spiritual level, but that we must oppose it on a secular, legal level as well.  If and when that day comes then I will follow Gods will, and do what I am asked to do.  I may have some struggles then just as I do now with what I see as some conflicting ideologies, but there are many mighty men who have gone before me with similar struggles.

My ideas expressed here might not be shared or even understood by all who will read it, but I find this a very conflicting topic and have not been able to find any easy answers.  Some of my deepest beliefs and my most dearly held values seem to be pitted directly against each other, and I am still working to define  harmony between them.  For now, this post represents my views and the perspectives that I understand from Gods teachings.  While I realize that I may receive clarity at some time in the future that will influence a change in this perspective, I see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the defining characteristics of our country, the purpose of our government, and one of the central points in Gods plan of happiness.  Allowing the government to dictate how I live or who I marry contradicts that belief, and I do not want to impose that contradiction on anybody else any more than I want to have it imposed on me.

Another Thing

One very public thing in the gay marriage debate recently was the announcement by President Obama that he supported gay marriage.

One point he made in his interview was interesting. He mentioned his daughters and how facing the prospect of explaining to them why their friends parents couldn't be married prompted a rethink of his "position". When I first heard that I took it to mean that because it was going to be hard to explain that he then changed his position. What a sad world we live in if that is how are president would approach a situation. After thinking it over however I came to a much more optimistic conclusion that when faced with explaining the situation to his daughters he reflected and then "admitted" that he had a different position on the topic.

If we can't explain something or aren't able to try there is a good chance we don't believe it and we are simply being honest with ourselves and others when we acknowledge that. It is good that he has been honest but sad that he has that position. Because there are valid reasons to think as he did before that civil unions can be brought to an equitable point with the proper time and effort.

Laws and Discrimination

Good references I have to say that both were interesting in their scope. I particularly like the treatment of the purpose of marriage being family and taking care of children.

I have found myself wondering about same-sex unions previously when I had multiple discussions with a coworker at a previous job. I have been opposed to the desire for "gay marriage" on moral grounds definitely but for a long time I didn't have a non-religious argument for a long time. Thomas Sowell an economist and columnist treats the matter well in several columns this is an example. Others can be found at this listing of columns. One thing I ask people when they argue for "gay marriage" is what end goal they are trying to accomplish, and what there argument is for going this route.

I have seen multiple reasons for applying marriage to gay unions primarily centering around the benefits afforded the couples such as visitation rights in hospitals, beneficiary rights on death, and many other connective "rights". However, marriage is not only about rights it is also about responsibilities and the laws centering around marriage rights and responsibilities have been growing up and establishing precedents for hundreds of years under the structure of a man/woman union. To take all of those legal decisions and precedents and apply them to something fundamentally different wholesale is a poor practice. If homosexual people want all of the rights then I think they are afforded the opportunity to build those from the foundation and legally I wouldn't oppose the procedure. The actual relationships aren't something I would legally oppose under our current form of government, but taking something established and trying to get all of the "benefits" in a fell swoop is dangerous for our form of law.

One other thing I like to hear is people try to argue that gays not being able to marry is some form of discrimination. The reality is that a homosexual man has the exact same right that I do and that is to marry a woman. I can't marry a man any more than he can. The argument then could go, "you can marry the person you love". I can marry a woman I love true, but I can marry a woman I do not love. The fundamental action is forming a contract between two human beings in this case the contract has developed and grown between man and woman and there is no discrimination in maintaining the integrity of such contracts.

Well this isn't all that complete, but it will do for now.

The Great Issue of Our Age

No, the title does not refer to how old we are getting. A friend of mine has turned a bit angry about the gay rights movement and keeps posting everywhere his (fiery) comments and beliefs about the subject. Some things he mentioned are:

• Churches that are saying “separate but equal” is just like women's suffrage and civil rights
• The church isn't true to it's history and has changed the definition of marriage
• Gays are genetically engineered that way

He mentions other things, but they are not important. Most of them are just other rants about how everyone who doesn't believe in gay marriage is a bigot. 

Here are some of my thoughts on subjects that go contrary to his arguments and the argument in general. As per my usual blog post--they aren't super organized.

• Race and gender are one thing, but sexual orientation is another. It has not been specifically proven anywhere that homosexuality is genetically pre-determined. The head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis S. Collins came out and said it is not hard-wired into an individual. While there may be heritability and influence of environment, choice still plays a significant role. Predispositions, not pre-determinations. Homosexuality is not Hard-wired

• Many say homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation. AT ALL. However, if there are people who say they have changed, then it must be possible. Here is an interesting article about misinformation that mentions that topic. Misinformation Rampant

• If we are saying that genetic predispositions determine behavior, then how will this bode for the future legal system? Professionals across the globe are finding predispositions to anger, possibly addictions, sensitivity, agreeableness, extroversion, introversion, etc. If one has a predisposition for aggression or anger does that mean they can get away with murder? Where would it end? Once again, the case comes down to predisposition and not predetermination. Individual agency is still in play.

• From an LDS standpoint, if people say “This is the way I am and that's it,” they are giving up on their agency (and taking a step closer to the animal kingdom in my opinion). Agency is what makes God God. He chose to behave a certain way, a righteous way, and became exalted because of it. To give up agency is to give up a whole lot of freedom and future potential.

• The word “rights” comes into play everyday. It's a free country, right? A friend of mine pointed out that what people don't understand is that this is legislating a type of behavior. Can we make laws about behavior? Yes, we do it all the time. Laws against murder, theft, etc. There are laws about decency, lewdness and a host of other things. But doesn't this violate someone's individual rights? Well, I don't know if there is a legal term for it, but it is for the common good, the betterment of society. Now this will provoke a huge argument that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. This is where we have to establish that the traditional family is the best unit for society. Here is an interesting blog article: Marriage In Thailand homosexuality, sex changes and other things are overwhelmingly abundant. Makes San Francisco look very tame I would say. After my time there I would say that the breakdown of the family has contributed to a ton of this. Children grow up with chaotic families or being assaulted by them (all to common).

• My friend feels the church isn't true to itself historically, has changed their own definition of marriage and should stop persecuting homosexuals. However, there's a reason plural marriage is called plural. Two women aren't married to one man in one marriage. It is more than one marriage, with. Not that this is a huge deal, but just to point out that my friend doesn't know what he's talking about.
• I have other thoughts regarding children, doctrinal things on marriage and such, but they don't have a lot to do with the above thoughts.

What are your thoughts? Anything else that I might add to such a discussion?