Mormonsandgays

[rockpond]

The very purpose of the Atonement is to change us into completely different people, altering -- sometimes obliterating -- our most essential and foundational natures. At least that has been my personal experience.

I'm happy to accept & respect that as your personal experience. But my study of the gospel has not led me to believe that the purpose of the atonement is to obliterate our "most essential and foundational natures". Overcome the natural man, yeah, I get that. But the proclamation teaches that there are certain parts of our identity that are eternal in nature.

[rockpond]

Actually, I can site various court cases and legislative records in support of my claim. In fact, that is where I got my claim.

However, you are missing the point. Governments have become involved in marriages primarily because of procreation. Biologically, gay couples can't procreate. So, governments do not have the same vested interest in SSM as they do with traditional marriages.

I have no problem with societies protecting children with non-biological parents. In fact, I encourage it. However, your point is a child protection issue, not a marital issue. Please don't confuse the two.

Wrong. If the value of the institution of marriage is a function of the procreative and heterosexual nature of the marriage, then it makes no sense to offer it to the LGBT community. Doing so merely makes a mockery of the institution of marriage and robs it somewhat of its value.

Alright, I'd like to see some of those references on the origins of legal marriage.

So what you are saying is that government sanctioned marriage only exists to protect children born to heterosexual pairings through the procreative act? We certainly don't restrict it that way. Children created through other means to heterosexual parents can still legally receive those benefits. Children brought into heterosexual marriages through divorce/adoption receive those benefits. Heterosexual couples who have no children still receive those benefits.

Our government has used marriage as a legal means of protecting children. To me, it makes no sense not to extend those protections to children of gay couples.

Additionally, heterosexual couples with no intention (and sometimes no ability) to procreate still receive legal benefits provided by government sanctioned marriage. So regardless of what may have been, procreation is not a requirement of marriage which means we need a new reason to deny it to gay couples.

[wenglund]

Unchanged? Polygyny & polyandry? Wives as chattel? Arranged marriages? Dowry? Biblical traditions of wives & concubines. Prohibitions against interracial marriage? Common law marraige? Marriage as a religious ceremony and marriage as a legal contract completed with a public official?

You are mistakenly conflating the essential legal structure of marriage (between a man and a woman) with various legal practices (multiple, common law, religious vs. civil ceremonies, etc.). The legal structure of marriage has remained relatively unchanged, though marital practices have somewhat altered over time.

True, the cost to societies has yet to be demonstrated. As well as the benefits.

Actually, some of the costs are readily demonstrable. There are costs to the state in lost revenues due to marital tax benefits. There are costs to the state and society for the 1,035 or so benefits associated with legal marriages. There are added cost to the courts for adjudicating divorce, custody, property, inheritance, and other issues associated with legal marriage, etc., and this doesn't even count the cost in value to the institution of marriage by bastardizing it.

However, you are right about the benefits having not been demonstrated. This means that the known costs are not off-set by demonstrable benefits, and so it doesn't make sense for societies to incur these substantial costs of SSM until it can be demonstrated that those costs are out weighed by the benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Walden]

wenglund, your single-minded insistence that government got into marriage as a mechanism for ensuring procreation is flawed and does not reflect the true history of the issuance of marriage licenses by the government. Sure, your argument supports your cause, but it is incorrect and I will be glad to go toe-to-toe with you regarding references for the reasons behind the government licensing of marriage.

In the US, the government didn't really get into the the marriage licensing business until the mid-19th century, and the initial catalyst for getting into the licensing business was because up until that point, most states recognized common-law marriage. Around the middle of the 19th century, some states began invalidating common law marriages, and thus, the feds stepped in to ensure uniformity throughout the different states. Another major catalyst for the government getting into the marriage business was as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mullatos, asians, etc, essentially those outside the white race.

Though it would be nice to think that the government was just looking out for us and trying to ensure our happiness and species survival by mandating the licensing of marriage, the facts are just not there to declare that "the main reasons governments got into the business of marriage was to encourage procreative relations becoming formally committed and long-lasting."

Now, if you want to get deeper into the government's role in marriage, particularly the western government's role as it began in England in 1215 and then spread to Europe a couple of centuries later, again, I will be glad to go toe-to-toe in providing references that refute your insistence that government got into the marriage business to "encourage procreative relations," and enlighten you to the fact that government got into the marriage business as a way of extending ecclesiastical control (and thus government control, considering the relation of the church and the governments of Europe at that time) over the people, not to mention enriching the church through license fees.

Just let me know when you would like me to start listing references to the real history of government involvement in marriage; I have a feeling you will be enlightened.

[RobertAC]

Good letter, Bridget-Night! Kudos to your bishop too who is seeking your input!

[canard78]

Already answered, please read with concentration.

Btw, this is not the first time someone has demanded posters participate in this thought experiment. It is almost a constant theme in each of these threads since gay marriage first became a topic. You act like no one has ever considered the ramifications of asking someone to sacrifice in this way.

This treatment is getting old.

I read your answer and appreciate it. As a relative newbie I was unaware this type of conversation had already run its course or was discouraged.

Although I'd replied to you, my clarification was directed at the thread participants in general as a way of applying the council on the new website. An effective way of walking a mile in a gay mormon's shoes is to try to imagine whether you would be willing to give up your immediate relationships (spouse/children) in this life based on the confidence of the gospel blessings in this and the next. I'm not saying you haven't thought about this required sacrifice, but the dismisal from others would suggest they perhaps haven't.

However, if it is considered an inappropriate line of discussion for a board that focuses instead on intellectual/doctrinal debate I'll drop it.

[wenglund]

I'm happy to accept & respect that as your personal experience. But my study of the gospel has not led me to believe that the purpose of the atonement is to obliterate our "most essential and foundational natures". Overcome the natural man, yeah, I get that. But the proclamation teaches that there are certain parts of our identity that are eternal in nature.

We know that sexual attractions aren't eternal, but are subject to change. At the very least, we all experience a change from childhood, where we had no sexual attraction, to young adulthood where we tend to have ample sexual attraction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamba Tuhan]

My study of the gospel has not led me to believe that the purpose of the atonement is to obliterate our "most essential and foundational natures". Overcome the natural man, yeah, I get that. But the proclamation teaches that there are certain parts of our identity that are eternal in nature.

I'm assuming that you're referring to the Proclamtion's statement that one's gender is eternal. By virtue of the Fall, however,we have 'become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature' (Alma 42:10). Unless that nature is changed, we cannot be saved because, as Amulek repeatedly pointed out to Zeezrom, one cannot be saved in his/her sins, only from them (Alma 11:34-37). Salvation quite literally is being converted -- 'a mighty change' -- from who we are naturally into what we need to be in order to enjoy all the blessings the Lord has prepared for us (Mosiah 5:2, 7; Mosiah 27:25; Alma 5; Alma 19:33; Helaman 15:7). Now, I'm 100% fine if people wish to reject this invitation to be changed for whatever reason, but for a Latter-day Saint to pretend that the entire Plan of Happiness is not centred on Christ's desire to fundamentally change us is a bit out there, in my opinion.

[canard78]

If everyone turned gay then no one has children, human population becomes extinct. Didnt God rain down hellfire and damnation on them for their sexual sins?

This is such a laughable line of argument. There are societies that didn't ban gay behaviour and somehow managed to provide a second generation. Are you serious about this or are you simply baiting.

I presume your second sentence is about Sodom & Gomorrah? This argument is also limited and does not accept the reality. A group of men wanting to gang rape/assault/humiliate some angels are not a relevant comparisson to gay people. Given comparisons to criminal behaviour has already been banned you should walk that line carefully.

So, CFR that Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed due to sexual sins (ideally canonized).

I'll start:

Ezekial 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

I find it an irony that people use Sodom as an argument against homosexuality but breeze over the fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters for sex with the crowd and walked out of the city unpunished. A bit sick really. In other words, sex wasn't the issue. Sodom became a scriptural story representing the punishment in store for those who are inhospitable to and reject the word of God's messengers. Even Jesus made this comparison:

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

(As stated previously, I accept the brethren's current position on gay marriage but object to the agressive negativity towards it from some members and posters)

[wenglund]

wenglund, your single-minded insistence that government got into marriage as a mechanism for ensuring procreation is flawed and does not reflect the true history of the issuance of marriage licenses by the government.

Your caricature of my position is flawed. My position isn't that governments got into the marriage business just to ensure procreation. Rather, it was also, and more so, to encourage that procreations take place within a formal committed relationship.

And, this isn't just my position. As indicated, it is a position that the courts and legislatures have also taken. If you would like me to site you some examples, I can. It may prove informative.

And, when I speak about governments getting into the marriage business, I am not just talking about licensing. I am also talking about laws governing personal and marital property rights, spousal and parental obligations, inheritance, naturalization, and laws regulating adultery, fornication, etc.

So, if you want to go toe-to-toe, you will need to not only correctly understand my position, but you will need to broaden the scope of your historical understanding to include all marital laws as well as laws dating back to Rome and Greece (around the 1st century A.D.), which established the foundation upon which later governmental system were built, including the U.S. Good luck with that.

If it is of any help, try researching the history of the social stigma for children born out of wedlock. And, if you understand the strong correlation, if not causation, between social morays and civil laws, you may get a sense for where I and the courts and the legislatures are coming from.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 13, 2012 by wenglund

[canard78]

We know that sexual attractions aren't eternal, but are subject to change. At the very least, we all experience a change from childhood, where we had no sexual attraction, to young adulthood where we tend to have ample sexual attraction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is a very valid point. Sex can almost certainly be taken out of the eternal conversation. While we know little about relationships in the eternities, we know a lot about them here. Sex is almost entirely hormonally driven. The fact that humans go through phases in their life and even over the course of a month with widely varying sexual interest is because of hormonal desires. Given hormones are temporary and a part of the natural man we will (probably) have none of them in the next life.

I hope there's something even better in store...

But... Many gay people will say their attraction preceded hormones. I think california boy made this point. While God may eliminate hormones, will the desires and inclinations of this life that are independent of hormones be taken away too?

[rongo]

By your logic, are you okay with slavery? The fact remains that slavery, as an "institution has been around since the beginning of time" and the "institution of (slavery) has a precedent, a very old one;" fortunately, we have been wise enough in modern times to forsake that tradition, at least in the western world. Just because an institution has had a long tradition does not make it just or right or fair.

Which of course wasn't what I was saying. Slavery is a horrible choice of analogy. For one thing, it has never been ubiquitous worldwide, at any time ---- notwithstanding it has existed for a long time. Marriage has, though, and never with any other alternative formal arrangements, even in societies with widespread homosexuality. They never considered that to be "marriage."

And you can't possibly be arguing that because the gay people that you personally know are not desirous of gay marriage, that can be extrapolated to the entire gay population?

Of course not. Obviously, there are homosexuals who want their arrangements to be formally recognized by society. What I was wondering was what other people's "reads" on the percentages were. I have a feeling that most people's are similar to mine, in that most of their gay friends and family aren't pushing for SSM.

So, for argument's sake, even if there is a small percentage of gay's who want to marry (let's say it is only 10-20% of the entire gay population), you think that they should be denied this right because they only represent a small portion of the overall population?

I don't think marriage at all (hetero- or homosexual) is a right. We have too many "rights," and increasingly more and more (health care, education, social net, marriage, etc.), and the more "rights" we insist on, the more our actual "rights" are cheapened and devalued.

[wenglund]

Alright, I'd like to see some of those references on the origins of legal marriage.

You can start with Loving v. Virginia and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942), from whence is derived the famous quote cited in numerous subsequent cases: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." (Civil rights are rights conferred by the state through the enactment of civil laws.)

So what you are saying is that government sanctioned marriage only exists to protect children born to heterosexual pairings through the procreative act?

No. I am suggesting that marital laws were instituted, in part, to discourage procreation outside of wedlock, or in other words to encourage procreation in wedlock.

And, because families have long been a fundamental institution of society, marital laws were also enacted to promote the ideal family structure--i.e. a family with a formally married and longterm committed relationship between father and mother and their biological children. Governments have promoted the ideal through regulation and the use of tax incentives and other governmental benefits.

That governments have wisely incentivize traditional marriage and families, doesn't mean they have unwisely neglect children born and raised in non-traditional families. However, advanced societies have thought it best that children in non-traditional familes be taken care of through child protection laws rather than marital laws, since doing otherwise would inadvertently dilute the governments wise efforts to promote traditional marriage and families. In other words, laws have been intelligently structured in such a way as to take care of children in non-traditional families while still promoting traditional families.

Unfortunately, the selfish push for legalizing SSM throws a wrench in the works and merely serves to devalue traditional marriage and families to the detriment of children as a whole.

...Additionally, heterosexual couples with no intention (and sometimes no ability) to procreate still receive legal benefits provided by government sanctioned marriage. So regardless of what may have been, procreation is not a requirement of marriage which means we need a new reason to deny it to gay couples.

The exceptions don't disprove the rule. Sorry.

To be clear, I am not talking about procreation as a requirement of marriage, but rather I am talking about marriage as the ideal for procreation. Do you understand the important difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rongo]

But the proclamation teaches that there are certain parts of our identity that are eternal in nature.

It only says "gender." Surely you aren't equating "gender" with "sexual orientation?"

Do you really think, "honor bright" (as B. H. Roberts used to say) that any of the Brethren, past or present (or future) would include "sexual orientation" as one of our "essential characteristics of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose?" I know you will counter that I can't know that some future Brethren might not do just that, but that isn't a very good apologetic foundation to argue from for you, is it?

Edited December 13, 2012 by rongo

[Calm]

If everyone turned gay then no one has children, human population becomes extinct. Didnt God rain down hellfire and damnation on them for their sexual sins?

The description in the scriptures was heavy on the violence involved, ie rape. I doubt God would do the same for respectful, caring relationships even if they are outside of marriage.

[Calm]

CB:

IThe percentage of homosexuals has stayed pretty consistent over history, even with its varying levels of acceptance or rejection by the public.

How would we know about the percentage of homosexuality over history when no one was keeping track of such things and many time periods such would result in prison or worse?

[Calm]

My mom, a faithful Latter-day Saint from cradle to grave, once commented to me that she had no desire to have children for eternity because of the heartache her children in mortality had caused her. Why would she want to have that kind of heartache for eternity? It may have been a temporary and emotional reaction at the time, but she never retracted the statement.

I have heard several LDS women, faithful in the Church, say the same thing. It astonished me when I first heard it that someone felt so deeply about their children that they would rather have no children than see them suffer. Since then I have come to realize that some people are better at dealing with others suffering and some are worse, but neither are less caring, more hard hearted or weak. Whether or not they will still have the same issues when they will be able to see the outcome of those sufferings AND be strengthened by their oneness with the Lord and others is something we cannot know, but I believe those who love others so much won't be limited in the numbers of those they will be able to share that love with eternally speaking.

[Calm]

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1239

I started a thread giving several examples of the Brethren openly considering polygamy to be temporary and looking to a time when it would be done away with. As far as the priesthood ban, President Kimball's referencing in OD2 of "promises made by the prophets and presidents opf the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood" does hark back to direct statements in JoD (there may be others not in JoD he had in mind as well). Wilford Woodruff proclaimed that at a future date, all people would have access to temple ordinances and blessings (he singled out blacks), and Brigham Young mentioned multiple times that the day would come when blacks would have the priesthood. He even made the statement that there were people in the audience who would live to see that day, which is remarkable, not that there might have been a newborn in the audience who lived to be 116 ( ), but that he was that close in pinpointing the time frame.

Your thread was probably the one I was thinking of with the temporary quotes. Glad to see I wasn't completely losing it.

[rockpond]

You are mistakenly conflating the essential legal structure of marriage (between a man and a woman) with various legal practices (multiple, common law, religious vs. civil ceremonies, etc.). The legal structure of marriage has remained relatively unchanged, though marital practices have somewhat altered over time.

Actually, some of the costs are readily demonstrable. There are costs to the state in lost revenues due to marital tax benefits. There are costs to the state and society for the 1,035 or so benefits associated with legal marriages. There are added cost to the courts for adjudicating divorce, custody, property, inheritance, and other issues associated with legal marriage, etc., and this doesn't even count the cost in value to the institution of marriage by bastardizing it.

However, you are right about the benefits having not been demonstrated. This means that the known costs are not off-set by demonstrable benefits, and so it doesn't make sense for societies to incur these substantial costs of SSM until it can be demonstrated that those costs are out weighed by the benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So if practices have altered over time, and the legal definition has changed then what were you saying had stayed the same for more than two millennia?

And that is a lovely attitude ...giving homosexuals the same benefits as us would cost us more money so let's use that as a reason to not do it. I imagine that our tax paying gay & lesbian citizens probably aren't too fond of paying for our benefits either. I think this is why we have the 14th amendment so that the minorities don't get the short end of the stick in examples like this.

[Calm]

And that is a lovely attitude ...giving homosexuals the same benefits as us would cost us more money so let's use that as a reason to not do it. I imagine that our tax paying gay & lesbian citizens probably aren't too fond of paying for our benefits either. I think this is why we have the 14th amendment so that the minorities don't get the short end of the stick in examples like this.

Does it really need to be pointed out that economically even childless individuals are benefited by having well adjusted, educated children growing up to be independent contributing members of society who support the more senior portion of society as it ages, including through government benefits of seniors paid into by the taxes on the younger section of society?

A government providing benefits on the standard of solely because it is the 'right thing to do' rather than it having a cost benefit for the government through potential taxes and other contributions will soon not be able to provide those benefits for its citizens no matter how well meaning and caring it is.

[rockpond]

You can start with Loving v. Virginia and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942), from whence is derived the famous quote cited in numerous subsequent cases: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." (Civil rights are rights conferred by the state through the enactment of civil laws.)

I'm not sure how this supports your argument:

A) It only dates back about 70 years for Skinner. Not 2,000 as you had suggested.

B) It (Loving) is actually one of the cases that significantly altered the US legal definition of marriage. It legalized interracial marriage and it did so back before we (the LDS Church) were even allowing blacks into the temple.

C) This is one of the cases commonly used by judges to rule in support of gay marriage.

[rockpond]

Does it really need to be pointed out that economically even childless individuals are benefited by having well adjusted, educated children growing up to be independent contributing members of society who support the more senior portion of society as it ages, including through government benefits of seniors paid into by the taxes on the younger section of society?

A government providing benefits on the standard of solely because it is the 'right thing to do' rather than it having a cost benefit for the government through potential taxes and other contributions will soon not be able to provide those benefits for its citizens no matter how well meaning and caring it is.

Agreed. So let's provide the same benefits to children of gay couples. Or do we only want well-adjusted, educated children of heterosexual couples?

[RobertAC]

I have heard several LDS women, faithful in the Church, say the same thing. It astonished me when I first heard it that someone felt so deeply about their children that they would rather have no children than see them suffer. Since then I have come to realize that some people are better at dealing with others suffering and some are worse, but neither are less caring, more hard hearted or weak. Whether or not they will still have the same issues when they will be able to see the outcome of those sufferings AND be strengthened by their oneness with the Lord and others is something we cannot know, but I believe those who love others so much won't be limited in the numbers of those they will be able to share that love with eternally speaking.

I know that this is beyond the topic of this thread, but I feel the same way about my family too. I would have a hard time seeing the joy of being together with them forever. My family is pretty disfunctional -- especially my mother and the women in her side of the family.

If there is an afterlife, I wouldn't mind a promise of very short and occasional visits.

[CV75]

And what of those whose heartfelt desire is to be with someone of the same gender for all eternity?

As I’ve been saying (based on the most important of LDS teachings) that can change—people’s so-called heart-felt desires even change in this life. The Gospel is about making those heart-felt desires better, and godlier.

That still doesn't console the gay person who, from their perspective, would have to be changed into a different person to partake of this benefit of the atonement?

We all have to change into a different person to partake of full benefit of the Atonement—that’s the whole point! Believe me, I know how frightening and difficult this prospect can be; I’ve been through it. Not as a gay person, but as a run-of-the-mill convert that knew I had to make some very fundamental changes in the way that I think and feel. And the process ain’t over yet!

And it’s not about becoming a pod person out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, either, but about becoming converted and sanctified.

Consolation is often found in accepting the fact that you need to change and the Lord will be patient with you for as long as it takes, as long as your most important heart-felt desires are to develop a character that puts Him first. This doesn't happen overnight, and doesn't happen in this lifetime alone.

[CV75]

And what of those whose heartfelt desire is to be with someone of the same gender for all eternity?

PS: this is part of the problem as well. Are not men with their fathers, brothers, children and other male relatives and friends in eternity, and women likewise with female relatives and friends? People stunt themselves when they limit their view of eternity as being with only one person, and one who meets their every need and with whom they share intimate relations. While this is important, the eternal focus is on how one enjoys all their relationships and relations within the bounds the Lord has set, while at the same time being very powerful, independent individuals.