Could A Member Of The Church Attend A Gay Wedding?

[Mark Beesley]

What do you consider diverse?

According to this recent poll, only 9% of Mormons in Utah thought that gay marriage should be legal.

This included all self identified Mormons, not just active Mormons.

By contrast, 44% of Catholics in this poll believe gay marriage should be legal.

What do the numbers show if you compare your first poll with a poll of Catholics in a state founded by the Catholics, like, say, Vatican City? Or, what is the comparison if you poll all Mormons rather than just those living in Utah?

I don't know either, but your comparison of these two polls is not very helpful to make the point you wanted to make. You need some control questions and comparative samples, neither of which are present in your analysis.

[wenglund]

What do you consider diverse?

According to this recent poll, only 9% of Mormons in Utah thought that gay marriage should be legal.

This included all self identified Mormons, not just active Mormons.

By contrast, 44% of Catholics in this poll believe gay marriage should be legal.

Gay marriage is not legal in Hawaii .... yet.

What, if anything, does this have to do with my response to KevinG? He was obviously referring to the divergence of LDS opinion on this thread. (BTW, I accept the dictionary definition of "diversity," which doesn't speak specifically to percentages).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

According to this recent poll, only 9% of Mormons in Utah thought that gay marriage should be legal.

This included all self identified Mormons, not just active Mormons.

Actually, the number is 13% according to the article, not that it's much different. I'd be curious to see: (1) what the number are for Mormons age 18-29, and (2) what the numbers would have been had the LDS church not come out in favor of banning these marriages (something we'll never know).

[Jaybear]

Actually, the number is 13% according to the article, not that it's much different. I'd be curious to see: (1) what the number are for Mormons age 18-29, and (2) what the numbers would have been had the LDS church not come out in favor of banning these marriages (something we'll never know).

I see that in the article, but on the last page, with the actual poll results it said 9%.

13% was the percentage of Mormons who thought interracial marriage should be illegal/didn't know.

Perhaps the article confused those numbers.

What do the numbers show if you compare your first poll with a poll of Catholics in a state founded by the Catholics, like, say, Vatican City? Or, what is the comparison if you poll all Mormons rather than just those living in Utah?

I don't know either, but your comparison of these two polls is not very helpful to make the point you wanted to make. You need some control questions and comparative samples, neither of which are present in your analysis.

Haven't seen a poll of all Mormons to make comparison. What evidence do you have to believe that there would be a materially difference?

[Cobalt-70]

I see that in the article, but on the last page, with the actual poll results it said 9%.

13% was the percentage of Mormons who thought interracial marriage should be illegal/didn't know.

Perhaps the article confused those numbers.

I think the more accurate result is in the last table on the second to last page, which says 13%. The 9% number on the last page is for a question that had three choices, and therefore probably has some question bias. It could be that both numbers are within the margin of error for both questions, although the margin of error for the 13% number would be smaller.

[KevinG]

I'd go. I wouldn't even ask who the caterer was first. (Not that we have those where I live but you get the idea.)

Given common stereotypes I think you can assume the catering at a gay wedding would be top quality. ;-)

[KevinG]

I remember what Grandma would say to a question like this:

"All weddings should be gay!"

5 minutes later

"Oh, that's not what we were talking about is it?"

[zerinus]

Could A Member Of The Church Attend A Gay Wedding?

I think that question is framed wrong. A better question would have been, "Should a member of the Church attend a gay wedding?"

[zerinus]

All I can say is that I am glad the Savior was able to sit down with publicans and sinners and eat with them. The pharisees had similar reactions to some of the comments on this thread. How do you guys not see this? What am I missing between the example of the Savior and your comments and what is "right"?

Question: Do you guys see any relationship between Christ eating with sinners and socializing with gay people?

"Sitting with publicans and sinners" isn't quite the same thing as attending their "gay marriage". Those "publicans and sinners" had come to sit with Him. They had recognized a virtue in Him, which they felt deserved to be explored. It was the early sign of repentant attitude. It was like Zacchæus, who climbed up a tree to see Jesus (Like 19:1-5); or like the harlot who had followed Him in the feast, and keeled behind Him kissing his feet and washing then with her tears. She had come to Him; He didn't go to visit her in the brothel.

[altersteve]

I think that question is framed wrong. A better question would have been, "Should a member of the Church attend a gay wedding?"

That was implied when I added "and remain in good standing".

[zerinus]

I see lots of scriptures admonishing me to love my children. I see none telling me to show public disapproval if they do something I consider a sin.

Of course it does:

Leviticus 19:

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

D&C 42:

90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

92 If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her.

93 And thus shall ye conduct in all things.

[zerinus]

That was implied when I added "and remain in good standing".

I don't think that attending one would or should put someone out of "good standing" with the Church; but I don't think it would be the right thing to do for lots of different reasons.

[Mark Beesley]

Haven't seen a poll of all Mormons to make comparison. What evidence do you have to believe that there would be a materially difference?

Haven't looked and don't know. I just know that comparing polls of Utah Mormons and all Catholics without some controls is likely to yield unuseful results.

[rpn]

Of course they could, we believe that people have agency. Probably even pay for one without repercussions, unless they broadcasted having done so (or are part of the wedding party).

[KevinG]

...and if my brother has not covenanted with the Lord as I have should I shun him because his beliefs are different? Nonsense.

[TAO]

I think this would be one of those that I would politely decline to go to. Surely those who would ask know that I morally oppose such a situation, I do not believe their feelings would be hurt too badly if I did not attend. And even if their feelings were hurt, there are times where we must learn to go in the opposite directions of other people. I feel, this would probably be one of those times for me.

[Stargazer]

No, if the individuals bound in the civil contract receive the legal benefits therein promised, it is decidedly not a fiction. They really do get those benefits.

If the government makes it legal for you, David, to walk into my house and take what you want up to the value of $100 up to five times per day between the hours of eight in the morning to five in the afternoon, regardless of whether I want to let you have it or not, and call it "Sharing", you better believe you benefit from it, in fact you really benefit from it, but it is not "sharing". It is theft and no "term of art" or "legal fiction" changes its character in reality, whatever you want to call it.

So give me a break, and stop trying to foist double-speak and half-truths on me.

[Stargazer]

The issue is not gay marriage; the issue is as stated. see the first post and leave off on the tired subject of gay marriage.

OK, you're right, it is not about gay marriage. Happy?

But how can it NOT be about gay marriage, when that is subject at hand? If I will not attend my child's, or friend's "wedding" because it is between two individuals of the same sex, then to leave off the "tired" subject of gay marriage is simply to ignore the elephant in the room.

Storm Rider, here is a suggestion: don't think about pink elephants! Stop it! I mean it! Quit it!

There, did you somehow manage not to think about pink elephants? No? So how on earth can you stop thinking about gay marriage WHEN THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD?!?! Oh, let's ignore that the entire reason for even bringing the subject of attending a homosexual "wedding" is because it's a homosexual "wedding"!!!

Please ban me from the thread. This is ridiculous.

[Vookman]

Others may have noted this, but not to be too obtuse, I am pretty sure there cannot be a wedding without a female and a male. Gay wedding is sort of like a boiling ice cube, or bright darkness. Redefinitions don't change the meaning of the act.

[CV75]

...and remain in good standing? This is a question I've been thinking about lately. I only ask it out of curiosity.

What are your thoughts on this?

Of course he could. The Church has no standard on this decision like it does on temple recommend questions.

But I wouldn’t go because I do not recognize gay marriage as a legitimate expression of the institution or the sacrament of marriage, no matter the legal jurisdiction or faith in which it is performed. I think we owe it to gay family, friends and neighbors to respectfully let them know where we stand, so that invitations and the resultant potentially awkward situations can be avoided. We need to let out light shine through our ongoing relationships and mundane interactions, not just for major life events.

[David T]

Redefinitions don't change the meaning of the act.

Legally, yes they do. They don't, however, effect religious rites or statuses that happen to go by the same name.

Edited April 3, 2012 by David T

[Stargazer]

Others may have noted this, but not to be too obtuse, I am pretty sure there cannot be a wedding without a female and a male. Gay wedding is sort of like a boiling ice cube, or bright darkness. Redefinitions don't change the meaning of the act.

Oh, please, don't tell David T. He's got a great answer for that one. It would go something along the lines of "it would TOO!" Or Storm Rider. He seems to think this has something to do with gay marraige, when it clearly doesn't.

Please, somebody ban me from the thread! I might go on like this for DAYS if you let me.

[Stargazer]

Legally, yes they do. They don't, however, effect religious rites or statuses that happen to go by the same name.

See!! What did I tell you!

[KevinG]

For those who would not attend a gay wedding and have provided the reason of the ceremony not being authorized does this mean you would not attend the marriage of a friend married in a civil ceremony or a ceremony from another religion?

For those who cannot condone the actions does this mean you would not eat in a place that served alcohol or attend an amusement park that allowed smoking?

It seems to me if you want to protest the action of another not attending would be a good plan. But the long term ramifications of snubbing a friend or a child when they have already made up their mind seems counter productive for showing love unfeigned and a missionary attitude.

By all means if you cannot be happy for someone else who believes differently than you don't show up and sit there with a sour expression on your face.

[Stargazer]

For those who would not attend a gay wedding and have provided the reason of the ceremony not being authorized does this mean you would not attend the marriage of a friend married in a civil ceremony or a ceremony from another religion?

For those who cannot condone the actions does this mean you would not eat in a place that served alcohol or attend an amusement park that allowed smoking?

It seems to me if you want to protest the action of another not attending would be a good plan. But the long term ramifications of snubbing a friend or a child when they have already made up their mind seems counter productive for showing love unfeigned and a missionary attitude.

By all means if you cannot be happy for someone else who believes differently than you don't show up and sit there with a sour expression on your face.

Apples and oranges. Drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco are not immoral acts. I've known plenty of LDS owned restaurants that served coffee and tea, too. Last I heard there was not the slightest suggestion that the Word of Wisdom was anything other than a covenant made between you and your Lord -- the idea that a non-member can "break" the Word of Wisdom is a contradiction in terms. The idea that a non-member can break break the Law of Chasity is not.