Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[Sleeper Cell]

I agree. Society and the church both have horses in the race. Thing is, it's a long race, and society will redefine marriage well before the church comes around to change. But the church will change because it will no longer be socially relevant if it maintains it's current stance for another 50-100 years.

H.

Since when is a church supposed to be socially relevant -- especially one whose very reason for existence is that it claims to be led by living prophets?

BTW, how have the more “socially relevant” churches been doing over the last 30 years or so?

[Messenger]

Presuming this isn't a rhetorical question and you are seeking an answer, I find it odd that any LDS man would choose to live a life of chastity. Many men endure periods of chastity (if chastity is defined as no sex outside marriage) but I can't think of any who willingly choose chastity as a way of life. Additionally, I think if we are completely honest with ourselves, we would acknowledge that sexuality and sex drive is not a part of us that we can simply turn off and turn on at will. Thus, it seems reasonable for a gay person, or straight person, to answer, "Because I don't want to live a sex-less life devoid of sexual intimacy".

H.

Its a question that goes to the core of the people wanting to change the church. You see, we will all fall short in some way or another and our actions determine if we are worthy of grace. Yet, those that realize and understand it's truth, don't try and change the church and the religious guidelines. They simply endure to the end. Sex drive is indeed a part of who we are. My A.D.H.D. is so severe that it will probably make it impossible for me to be married because I simply don't understand how to maintain a relationship. Why am I still a member? And why am I happy in the church? Wouldn't I simply be happier if the church let me have sex just for fun all the time and forget about relationships? Because the Lord's church gives me hope that eventually all things will be made right. My mother once said, when I was a frustrated A.D.H.D. child not knowing what was wrong, she would say "Do what you can, don't worry about what you cant change". What benefits that have come from having a marriage that was sexually satisfying, also created my son who inherited my A.D.H.D. It seems to me that there is more to benefit a person's soul, which gives him hope, than engaging in something that will harm others. In the end, we keep the commandments because we love our Heavenly Father and love ourselves and our fellow man. We don't, and shouldn't do those things that do the opposite. Once a man understands this (the difference between sexual love and love for the Lord), he'll understand that it wouldn't matter to that man if the church accepted Gay marriage or not, because spiritually, he would still be damned (or not have access to the spirit). And to be honest, this concept may take a spiritual understanding to comprehend its depth. Lets hope that for all involved, it may be understood in that way.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Messenger

[LDSToronto]

Since when is a church supposed to be socially relevant -- especially one whose very reason for existence is that it claims to be led by living prophets?

BTW, how have the more “socially relevant” churches been doing over the last 30 years or so?

We can bicker all we want about whether a church should be socially relevant; but if a church continues to move towards the fringes of society in terms of commonly accepted moral values, I think there is little question that it will fade into irrelevance.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Its a question that goes to the core of the people wanting to change the church. You see, we will all fall short in some way or another and our actions determine if we are worthy of grace. Yet, those that realize and understand it's truth, don't try and change the church and the religious guidelines. They simply endure to the end. Sex drive is indeed a part of who we are. My A.D.H.D. is so severe that it will probably make it impossible for me to be married because I simply don't understand how to maintain a relationship. Why am I still a member? And why am I happy in the church? Wouldn't I simply be happier if the church let me have sex just for fun all the time and forget about relationships? Because the Lord's church gives me hope that eventually all things will be made right. My mother once said, when I was a frustrated A.D.H.D. child not knowing what was wrong, she would say "Do what you can, don't worry about what you cant change". What benefits that have come from having a marriage that was sexually satisfying, also created my son who inherited my A.D.H.D. It seems to me that there is more to benefit a person's soul, which gives him hope, than engaging in something that will harm others. In the end, we keep the commandments because we love our Heavenly Father and love ourselves and our fellow man. We don't, and shouldn't do those things that do the opposite. Once a man understands this (the difference between sexual love and love for the Lord), he'll understand that it wouldn't matter to that man if the church accepted Gay marriage or not, because spiritually, he would still be damned (or not have access to the spirit). And to be honest, this concept may take a spiritual understanding to comprehend its depth. Lets hope that for all involved, it may be understood in that way.

I'm sorry to hear you can't manage your ADHD and that has broken up your marriage and has been a barrier to you forming relationships with women. Let's set ADHD aside; most of us don't suffer from mental illness and so I want to view this issue through a clear lens.

You say, "Wouldn't I simply be happier if the church let me have sex just for fun all the time and forget about relationships?" Let's be clear about something: The church makes rules AND is powerless to enforce rules. When we say, "The church won't let me do X", that is simply false. The church says you must abstain from X, and you, endowed with agency, are free to do X REGARDLESS of what the church says about X.

Latter-day Saints rationalize chastity in all kinds of ways. You've chosen to rationalize abstinence by creating a dichotomy: Sex is a fun activity, but outside marriage, sex is only a fun activity and causes one to avoid relationships. Your false dichotomy is that one can have sex outside marriage, or one can have a relationship, but not both. You fail to see that sex and relationships can co-exist absent marriage.

Choosing abstinence over reproduction is unnecessary. You seem to fear reproduction because it may pass along ADHD to your progeny and so you choose celibacy. Yet barrier and chemical methods of contraception exist, erasing the irrationality this fear is based upon.

So what's left? Ah, yes, spirituality. But here's the thing about spirituality - it's personal. See, one can easily turn the tables on celibacy and state that celibacy deadens one's ability to feel the spirit, that denying oneself the ultimate human intimacy, one never experiences the ultimate spiritual transcendance. After all, that is why the LDS church places such an emphasis on sexual intimacy within the context of the celestial - the highest reward in heaven is to have endless family and endless progeny.

Thus, stating celibacy is a reasonable choice for gay/lesbian/straight people denies them the same human and spiritual experiences to which others are entitled.

H.

[Log]

If you're not willing to abide by the code of conduct, find a different club to join.

[LDSToronto]

If you're not willing to abide by the code of conduct, find a different club to join.

Is that what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are preaching these days? I'd daresay, no, it is not.

H.

[Messenger]

If you're not willing to abide by the code of conduct, find a different club to join.

I agree totally!

There are lots of clubs. Exactly! Join it for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

[Messenger]

Your false dichotomy is that one can have sex outside marriage, or one can have a relationship, but not both. You fail to see that sex and relationships can co-exist absent marriage.

I'm sorry you didn't see my point. Let me explain ...Without the spirit, and hope that it brings, what would be the point of marriage? But, As I said, its going to take some spiritual understanding to get there.

[Kenngo1969]

... tating celibacy is a reasonable choice for gay/lesbian/straight people denies them the same human and spiritual experiences to which others are entitled.

H.

Man, I have been going about this "find-a-suitable-mate" thing all wrong all these years! All of this time, I have been trying to manage the attention of the fairer gender on those rare occasions when it has come my way ... but mostly, alas, simply trying to handle the rejection, which is so much more common. Now you're tellin' me I don't have to worry about any of that. I just find someone I like, don't give a dang about whether she likes me back or not, and tell her, "But Honey, you have to marry me ... because I'm entitled to certain 'human and spiritual' experiences with you!" :rofl: [sigh] :rofl: ROFL: [Tears roll ...]

Thanks for helpin' a brutha out, there, Toronto!

Edited April 8, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[LDSToronto]

I'm sorry you didn't see my point. Let me explain ...Without the spirit, and hope that it brings, what would be the point of marriage? But, As I said, its going to take some spiritual understanding to get there.

Many people get married without any knowledge of the Holy Ghost and the hope that it brings, and I would go so far as to say that they don't find their marriages pointless.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Man, I have been going about this "find-a-suitable-mate" thing all wrong all these years! All of this time, I have been trying to manage the attention of the fairer gender on those rare occasions when it has come my way ... but mostly, alas, simply trying to handle the rejection, which is so much more common. Now you're tellin' me I don't have to worry about any of that. I just find someone I like, don't give a dang about whether she likes me back or not, and tell her, "But Honey, you have to marry me ... because I'm entitled to certain 'human and spiritual' experiences with you!" :rofl: [sigh] :rofl: ROFL: [Tears roll ...]

Thanks for helpin' a brutha out, there, Toronto!

Yes, well, let me know how that works for you. Hey, you're also welcome to comment on my post in context, as opposed to snipping out a comment and changing it's meaning...

H.

[LDSToronto]

I agree totally!

There are lots of clubs. Exactly! Join it for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

Really? You'd rather people leave the church because they can't or won't live the gospel, than stay? That just sounds so incredibly backwards and contrary to what the church teaches.

[Bikeemikey]

If marriage is a religious term we should object to the state having anything to do with it... including the issuance of marriage licenses agreements.

If marriage is a civil term there should be no allowance for discriminatory practices regarding how can have it and who cant. It should be open to all members of the civil society equally.

If we as LDS are serious about protecting our definition of marriage we should oppose any effort to give the government control of the definition, including such actions as California Prop 8 and the current ferderal defense of marriage act. If the Govt ends up controlling the definition of marriage then we as a religious institution will be forced to adhere to that definition. We as a church community are asking the government to define and protect religious terms in civic and legislative settings. I view this as fundamentally unconstitutional.

All religions everywhere should have absolute freedom to define marriage in a way that is congruent with the revelations they have received from God. This is because marriage is a religious term.

This unfortunately includes the freedom to allow religions who believe God is totally fine with gay-marriage the liberty to practice such religious beliefs without government censure.

If marriage is a religious term Govt should not offer them - Gays would still be free to be married if religions we willing to do so.

If marriage is a Civic term to be defined by the Govt then the Govt has a constitutional obligation not to discriminate - Gay marriage would have to be permitted.

Religions who want to protect the religious nature of marriage should oppose the Govt issuing marriages. Anything short of this undermines our long term religious freedom and autonomy.

[LDSToronto]

If marriage is a religious term we should object to the state having anything to do with it... including the issuance of marriage licenses agreements.

If marriage is a civil term there should be no allowance for discriminatory practices regarding how can have it and who cant. It should be open to all members of the civil society equally.

If we as LDS are serious about protecting our definition of marriage we should oppose any effort to give the government control of the definition, including such actions as California Prop 8 and the current ferderal defense of marriage act. If the Govt ends up controlling the definition of marriage then we as a religious institution will be forced to adhere to that definition. We as a church community are asking the government to define and protect religious terms in civic and legislative settings. I view this as fundamentally unconstitutional.

All religions everywhere should have absolute freedom to define marriage in a way that is congruent with the revelations they have received from God. This is because marriage is a religious term.

This unfortunately includes the freedom to allow religions who believe God is totally fine with gay-marriage the liberty to practice such religious beliefs without government censure.

If marriage is a religious term Govt should not offer them - Gays would still be free to be married if religions we willing to do so.

If marriage is a Civic term to be defined by the Govt then the Govt has a constitutional obligation not to discriminate - Gay marriage would have to be permitted.

Religions who want to protect the religious nature of marriage should oppose the Govt issuing marriages. Anything short of this undermines our long term religious freedom and autonomy.

Let me see if I understand you - if marriage is a religious institution, churches should lobby against civil marriage, and not just a subset (same-sex marriage). Is that correct? If so, I can get behind that reasoning.

H.

[Bikeemikey]

Let me see if I understand you - if marriage is a religious institution, churches should lobby against civil marriage, and not just a subset (same-sex marriage). Is that correct? If so, I can get behind that reasoning.

H.

I fundamentally agree with your summation of what I wrote - it is a fair representation of my position. The biggest threat to religious freedom and liberty is having our religious institutions/ceremonies defined by government (Govt can change definitions by a vote - religions should be allowed to freedom to only change based on revelation from God). That is what Prop 8 and other defense of marriage programs are asking the Government to do.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Scott Lloyd]

We can bicker all we want about whether a church should be socially relevant; but if a church continues to move towards the fringes of society in terms of commonly accepted moral values, I think there is little question that it will fade into irrelevance.

H.

It's not the Church that's moving. And it will always be relevant to those who respond to the light of Christ.

Your remark reminds me of those who exert peer pressure ("Everybody else is doing it") on others to try to get them to forsake their standards.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Would you expect to see the former proclamations canonized alongside the latest one?

This one is especially timely and is rapidly becoming moreso as time goes on.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

It's not the Church that's moving. And it will always be relevant to those who respond to the light of Christ.

Your remark reminds me of those who exert peer pressure on others to try to get them to forsake their standards.

All churches should have the absolute right to not change views, teachings, dogmas, beliefs with the general trend of society.

That does not mean we should be asking the Govt to enshrine in legislative governance our own views and beliefs, especially when they will be increasingly at odds with society in general.

We don't need to ask the government to define what our LDS definition of marriage is because we are allowed to have it be what ever our prophet tells us it is - this should also include religiously acceptable polygamy. Likewise, the USA in general does not have to adhere or agree to our definition of Marriage. That is the great thing about the constitutional protection of religion, "we" are protected from changing and "they" are protected from forced adoption of our understanding/view/definition of things.

It is a dangerous gambit to try to mess with the latter portion of this constitutional protection and not expect a backlash towards our ability to keep the first portion intact.

Mormons should advance a position that deals with our interests and freedoms of religious expression as a church. By asking the Govt to define a religious term we are doing the opposite.

Furthermore, we should be looking for an outcome that would provide our religion (and all religions) the freedom and autonomy to have continued the religious practice of Polygamy back in the early church.

The denial of the religious freedom to the LDS church represented by the refusal to allow the consensual practice of polygamy is no different the the federal and state governments mocking freedom and liberty by the restriction of gay marriage to certain groups today.

If we want to protect freedom and liberty for our own religious beliefs we must also protect freedom and liberty for principles and beliefs we do not share.

[Kenngo1969]

Thus, stating celibacy is a reasonable choice for gay/lesbian/straight people denies them the same human and spiritual experiences to which others are entitled.

I don't think I divorced this statement from its context as much as you might like people to think I did. Where does this sense of entitlement come from, Toronto? Don't I first have to accept the premise that if someone else has [x] and I don't, that must mean I'm somehow less of a human being, or, according to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that I'm somehow worth less in God's eyes in order for that sense of entitlement to take root? I'll grant you that refusing to accept that premise is easier said than done, Toronto, and it's a constant struggle (even for many of us who are straight-but-single in a family church).

But what if, instead of demanding that the Church change in a way that might make life "easier" for me in the short run (such as by removing any potential mate's choice in the matter by arranging a marriage for me, as many of the Church's polygynous offshoots do), I simply refuse to accept the premise that God must love me less because someone else has [x] and I don't? Don't I have the free will to do that? Don't I have the power to choose how I respond to my circumstances, however difficult that choice may be? That's the problem I have with gays who want the Church of Jesus Christ to change to suit them.

You know what? Maybe the choice to live the Church's standards in spite of their circumstances is uniquely difficult for them, and maybe any choices I have to make in order to do the same as a single heterosexual are easy by comparison. But doesn't that put us back to, "Life is easier for someone else because they don't have to deal with [x], and I do, so I'm entitled?" Aren't we really saying that once life's "difficulty meter" passes a certain threshold, that fact removes our free will and ourr power to choose how to respond to ourr circumstances? Wasn't removing our power to choose a part of someone else's plan? And if he can convince someone that their only choice, given their circumstances, is to sin (from the Church's perspective) doesn't that accomplish the same objective?

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think I divorced this statement from its context as much as you might like people to think I did. Where does this sense of entitlement come from, Toronto? Don't I first have to accept the premise that if someone else has [x] and I don't, that must mean I'm somehow less of a human being, or, according to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that I'm somehow worth less in God's eyes in order for that sense of entitlement to take root? I'll grant you that refusing to accept that premise is easier said than done, Toronto, and it's a constant struggle (even for many of us who are straight-but-single in a family church).

But what if, instead of demanding that the Church change in a way that might make life "easier" for me in the short run (such as by removing any potential mate's choice in the matter by arranging a marriage for me, as many of the Church's polygynous offshoots do), I simply refuse to accept the premise that God must love me less because someone else has [x] and I don't? Don't I have the free will to do that? Don't I have the power to choose how I respond to my circumstances, however difficult that choice may be? That's the problem I have with gays who want the Church of Jesus Christ to change to suit them.

You know what? Maybe the choice to live the Church's standards in spite of their circumstances is uniquely difficult for them, and maybe any choices I have to make in order to do the same as a single heterosexual are easy by comparison. But doesn't that put us back to, "Life is easier for someone else because they don't have to deal with [x], and I do, so I'm entitled?" Aren't we really saying that once life's "difficulty meter" passes a certain threshold, that fact removes our free will and ourr power to choose how to respond to ourr circumstances? Wasn't removing our power to choose a part of someone else's plan? And if he can convince someone that their only choice, given their circumstances, is to sin (from the Church's perspective) doesn't that accomplish the same objective?

Everything you have said makes perfect sense and is also the same logic that ought to conclude... we will not marry homosexuals in our church but it is wrong for the government to refuse to let homosexuals marry in other churches that believe it to be OK.

If I believe in a religious tradition that allows gay-marriage, and I want to be married in a homosexual relationship, and the Govt refuses to let me, despite of my religious convictions, we are indeed setup up a context contrary to religious freedom and one that is creating a two-teir construct of person-hood.

Not only is the person less of a human being, but their religion is less of a religion, because of the denial access to ceremony that is given to others who are differentiated by one facet of their character.

I really am trying hard but I have no idea how the red herrings of entitlement and God's Love are involved in this.

Our Church has no reason, nor should it, allow or condone homosexual activity or marriage, until such time as God tells us its ok. People can desire all they want for this to be different. This has nothing to do with God's love and I have no idea how this has to do with the idea of entitlement.

At issue is the fact that Christian Churches are attempting to create an absence of opportunity for Gay-marriage, not just inside the Churches, but also outside the churches in the general political and civic community at large. If all they were saying was we don't marry Gays here thats something that they need the fundamental religious freedom to do. If they are saying we don't do it here therefore it shouldn't be done out there either... Then we have a problem.

[Kenngo1969]

My reason for supporting the Church's opposition to same-sex civil marriage is that I believe it's simply a back-door through which those who want universal gay marriage will try to get what they want when they can't get past the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" obstacle which is blocking the front door to the LDS Church ... or the LDS Temple. I've been accused of being a Chicken-Little alarmist on that score, and I hope I'm wrong, but I do believe that eventually, the gay-rights "tail" is going to try to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman" "dog" (bad metaphor, I know). "Oh, Ken! That's impossible! It would never happen in a country with a First Amendment!" I've been told. That's nice ... I would be reassured by that, if it weren't for one thing: it already has. Ever hear of polygyny and the Church being forced to abandon the practice? I rest my case. Yes, the sociopolitical conditions which led to the Church's abandonment of polygyny are different than the ones which are implicated in the debate over gay marriage, but those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

[Messenger]

Really? You'd rather people leave the church because they can't or won't live the gospel, than stay? That just sounds so incredibly backwards and contrary to what the church teaches.

Its backwards only if you think its all about getting more members, like customers in a business. Its not. That's why it probably seems backwards to you.

[LDSToronto]

Its backwards only if you think its all about getting more members, like customers in a business. Its not. That's why it probably seems backwards to you.

I don't think that way at all. I think the church professes to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. It seems backwards that such a church would tell people who apparently need it the most to go away.

H.

[Damien the Leper]

My reason for supporting the Church's opposition to same-sex civil marriage is that I believe it's simply a back-door through which those who want universal gay marriage will try to get what they want when they can't get past the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" obstacle which is blocking the front door to the LDS Church ... or the LDS Temple. I've been accused of being a Chicken-Little alarmist on that score, and I hope I'm wrong, but I do believe that eventually, the gay-rights "tail" is going to try to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman" "dog" (bad metaphor, I know). "Oh, Ken! That's impossible! It would never happen in a country with a First Amendment!" I've been told. That's nice ... I would be reassured by that, if it weren't for one thing: it already has. Ever hear of polygyny and the Church being forced to abandon the practice? I rest my case. Yes, the sociopolitical conditions which led to the Church's abandonment of polygyny are different than the ones which are implicated in the debate over gay marriage, but those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

I understand and empathize with your concerns. But let me asure you, from my position, I don't want nor do I ask for the LDS church to open its church buildings or Temples to my eventual less than orthodox marriage. I hope there are more out there who are willing to take this position with me to keep our marriages separate from LDS property and practices.

[Messenger]

I don't think that way at all. I think the church professes to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. It seems backwards that such a church would tell people who apparently need it the most to go away.

H.

In my opinion, the most the church has, that can be valuable to anyone, is the spirit and the direction it brings. What do you feel the church has that will benefit those that "need" it?