Thursday, October 16, 2008

Men and Women

I feel nothing but confusion coming from the discussion about "gay marriage" and California's latest voter initiative. Apparently other people have similar misgivings. I have read much discussion about it, pro and con, on the internet and in the bloggernacle lately.

I think, if we could but return to conditions closer to subsistence living, men and women would discover together fairly quickly that traditional roles work more effectively than any implementation of idealogical "egalitarian" relationship. That understanding should form the basis for any further development or refinement of civil law.

Of course, civil law should be based in the values and ethics of the culture under the laws. The scriptures read:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. (Mosiah 29:26)

I am not certain, but I think the people of California voiced their opinion, were overruled by judges who interpret the law according to a different voice. Let us hope that ultimately the voice of those who would choose the right will prevail, in California and elsewhere. In the mean time, confusion reigns.

I, for one, do not find any need to answer all the confusing questions, just to satisfy my curiosity, or for any other reason. Though it is interesting to discuss, Church leaders have already counselled us to affirm that the marriage covenant is reserved for relationships between a man and woman. That is good enough for me. I may not understand all the implications, but I long ago committed to follow the counsel of the brethren, to the best of my ability. So there is no doubt in my mind about that, at least.

No comments: