What About Gay Civil Marriage?

[Chris Smith]

One of the usual objections to gay marriage is that it isn't procreative, and therefore it can never produce "eternal increase". Okay, so that arguably explains why there can't be gay celestial marriage, but what about civil marriage? As far as I know, a civilly married person can be in good standing in the Church without their marriage and sexual activity being regarded as sinful. Inferior, perhaps, but not an abomination. Is it conceivable that the Church might come to accept gay civil marriage as a sort of acceptable, lesser, "terrestrial" path for faithful members who, because of their same-gender attraction, can't bring themselves to live in a "celestial" heterosexual marriage? It seems like this would combine compassionate understanding with faithfulness to perceived LDS theological prerogatives.

Just a thought.

[KevinG]

I would already accept it as a civil or non-secular institution. I don't believe that someones private practices should affect their ability to get government or health benefits provided by an employer.

I don't think the church is obliged to acknowledge any unions that are not done according to our practices in our temples and chapels. A chapel wedding is already seen as an interim step to temple marriage. Those are also done between male and female spouses only,

[Chris Smith]

"Chapel" marriage is the Mormonese term I was looking for, not "civil" marriage. Thanks for the correction. I realize that the Church currently recognizes them only for opposite-gender couples. What I'm wondering is if the acceptance of same-sex chapel marriages might be an acceptable future compromise position for the Church, as it struggles to balance compassion and tolerance with its theological commitments.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

One of the usual objections to gay marriage is that it isn't procreative, and therefore it can never produce "eternal increase". Okay, so that arguably explains why there can't be gay celestial marriage, but what about civil marriage? As far as I know, a civilly married person can be in good standing in the Church without their marriage and sexual activity being regarded as sinful. Inferior, perhaps, but not an abomination. Is it conceivable that the Church might come to accept gay civil marriage as a sort of acceptable, lesser, "terrestrial" path for faithful members who, because of their same-gender attraction, can't bring themselves to live in a "celestial" heterosexual marriage? It seems like this would combine compassionate understanding with faithfulness to perceived LDS theological prerogatives.

Just a thought.

I wouldn't think it "inferior," since some widows from a temple marriage marry "for time" with men who cannot marry them in the temple (they are already sealed to someone). The same applies to widowers who marry an already sealed widow. Moreover, such marriages can be performed at home or in the chapel without any stigma attaching.

As for your timely suggestion on homosexual marriage being accepted within the LDS Church, I doubt that. However, the notion of having civil marriage widely accepted throughout the USA has very important implications for the religious liberty of Muslim Americans and the LDS Church, i.e., Reynolds vs The USA would likely be overturned, and plural marriage would also become legal. Polygynist Fundamentalists would begin demanding that they not be discriminated against in hiring (especially in law enforcement and military jobs), etc. A legal and cultural sea change is coming.

[Damien the Leper]

IF the church were to decide in the affirmative on this I would applaud them. If they choose to continue in the path they are on then all I can do is respect them for their conviction. Either way, I'm not putting my life or happiness on hold. I choose to go forward without the church's blessing. A blessing that is irrelevant to my life.

[LDSToronto]

I would already accept it as a civil or non-secular institution. I don't believe that someones private practices should affect their ability to get government or health benefits provided by an employer.

I don't think the church is obliged to acknowledge any unions that are not done according to our practices in our temples and chapels. A chapel wedding is already seen as an interim step to temple marriage. Those are also done between male and female spouses only,

Perhaps the church wouldn't be compeled to allow temple sealings or allow bishops/branch presidents to perform same-sex marriages. But, if a gay couple were married at city hall, would the church have any reason to deny that couple membership in the church? That is, can we foresee a day were the LDS church accepts civil marriage for same-sex couples and does not inflict church discipline?

H.

[Tepui]

You could always spend your time foreseeing better things than this.

[KevinG]

"Chapel" marriage is the Mormonese term I was looking for, not "civil" marriage. Thanks for the correction. I realize that the Church currently recognizes them only for opposite-gender couples. What I'm wondering is if the acceptance of same-sex chapel marriages might be an acceptable future compromise position for the Church, as it struggles to balance compassion and tolerance with its theological commitments.

I can't see it happening... but then again I don't know the mind of God in such things beyond the doctrines we currently operate under. I wouldn't leave the church if it did happen.

[KevinG]

Right now a gay couple could visit our services and worship. However they would be asked to refrain from the sacrament and full participation in callings if they were not chaste. Their status would be roughly equivalent of a member on a Bishops probation as far as activity went.

It would take a lot of courage for someone to regularly attend under those conditions + the social reaction of some Saints.

[Buzzard]

Perhaps the church wouldn't be compeled to allow temple sealings or allow bishops/branch presidents to perform same-sex marriages. But, if a gay couple were married at city hall, would the church have any reason to deny that couple membership in the church? That is, can we foresee a day were the LDS church accepts civil marriage for same-sex couples and does not inflict church discipline?

H.

No, we can't. I realize that the topic will be endlessley debated, with people probing for possible cracks in the churches theology, but this is not a peripheral doctrine. In fact, I would go so far as to say that marriage (Guy/Gal exclusively) is THE core doctrine of the entire Plan of Salvation. There are no cracks.

[TAO]

One of the usual objections to gay marriage is that it isn't procreative, and therefore it can never produce "eternal increase". Okay, so that arguably explains why there can't be gay celestial marriage, but what about civil marriage? As far as I know, a civilly married person can be in good standing in the Church without their marriage and sexual activity being regarded as sinful. Inferior, perhaps, but not an abomination. Is it conceivable that the Church might come to accept gay civil marriage as a sort of acceptable, lesser, "terrestrial" path for faithful members who, because of their same-gender attraction, can't bring themselves to live in a "celestial" heterosexual marriage? It seems like this would combine compassionate understanding with faithfulness to perceived LDS theological prerogatives.

Just a thought.

I think it's because, generally, in the church, acting on such feelings isn't usually seen as terrestrial, but rather as telestial.

And generally, because such acts are viewed like that... as an abomination, and not as a lesser form... I don't think this would happen really. They are... how should I say it... 'polar enough', to not fit together well in this manner.

[bluebell]

In my perfect world, the government would get out of the marriage business and everyone would have a civil union. In that world, i would be completely fine with a gay union and a straight union having the same distinctions, rules, laws, and limitations.

My only issue is that i do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Log]

Homosexual acts are sinful in and of themselves, whether the participants have a license for it from the state, or their church, or neither.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Log

[Chris Smith]

Homosexual acts are sinful in and of themselves, whether the participants have a license for it from the state, or their church, or neither.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a taxonomic logic that would make it possible to say why all "homosexual acts" are classified as sinful and to determine the boundaries of that category.

The solution I proposed is based on the assumptions that 1) homosexual acts are wrong because all sex outside marriage is wrong, and 2) gay marriage is not recognized by the Church because it isn't procreative and therefore doesn't meet the standard for celestial exaltation. If that's the logic, then there would seem to be some wiggle room with regard to gay chapel marriages and sex within those marriages.

But maybe you're working with a different logic.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Chris Smith

[KevinG]

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a taxonomic logic that would make it possible to say why "homosexual acts" are classified as sinful and to determine the boundaries of that category.

Because God said so. That is really the bottom line. We can speculate as to the purpose of marriage as a way to raise up seed- but as with all commandments it is God's instructions as revealed in the scriptures and through prophets that guides our practices.

The boundaries according to the LDS are sexual acts outside of a marriage between an man and a women. That includes hetero as well as homosexual acts.

[bluebell]

.

But maybe you're working with a different logic.

I don't know that it's different logic so much as different beliefs.

In the LDS religion (as i'm sure you already know), the fundamental unit of Heaven is the family, comprised of a man and woman sealed in a relationship which is capable of creating eternal offspring. It's not illogical to believe that homosexuality is contrary eternal realities and so is a sin.

[LDSToronto]

Right now a gay couple could visit our services and worship. However they would be asked to refrain from the sacrament and full participation in callings if they were not chaste. Their status would be roughly equivalent of a member on a Bishops probation as far as activity went.

It would take a lot of courage for someone to regularly attend under those conditions + the social reaction of some Saints.

I agree. This discussion has come up in the past on this board. A gay couple who is married can attend services but, I doubt it would be acceptable if they held hands, hugged, did the small intimate things that heterosexual couples do in public. In that past discussion, it was mentioned that a bishop should ask gay married couples to refrain from showing affection and that if they didn't comply, they should be asked to leave.

I'm not sure if the discussion is archived here still, but it was an interesting conversation.

H.

[Chris Smith]

Because God said so.

Well, that settles it then.

http://youtu.be/S1-ip47WYWc?t=1m28s

President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but ... when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill. --Apostle Charles Penrose

Edited April 8, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Stargazer]

"Chapel" marriage is the Mormonese term I was looking for, not "civil" marriage. Thanks for the correction. I realize that the Church currently recognizes them only for opposite-gender couples. What I'm wondering is if the acceptance of same-sex chapel marriages might be an acceptable future compromise position for the Church, as it struggles to balance compassion and tolerance with its theological commitments.

I think the chance of this is about the same as Hell freezing over, bluntly.

Which reminds me:

Subject: When Engineers go to Hell

An engineer dies and reports to the Pearly Gates. Saint Peter checks his dossier and, not seeing his name there, accidentally sends him to Hell.

It doesn't take long before the engineer becomes rather dissatisfied with the level of comfort in Hell. He soon begins to design and build improvements. Shortly thereafter, Hell has air conditioning, flush toilets and escalators. Needless to say, the engineer is a pretty popular guy.

One day, God calls Satan and says with a sneer: "So, how are things in Hell?"

Satan replies: "Hey, things are going great. We've got air conditioning, flush toilets, and escalators. And there's no telling what this engineeris going to come up with next."

"What!?" God exclaims: "You've got an engineer? That's a mistake - he should never have been sent to Hell. Send him to me."

"Not a chance," Satan replies: "I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him!"

God insists: "Send him back or I'll sue."

Satan laughs uproariously and answers: "Yeah, right. And where are you going to get a lawyer?"

[Stargazer]

Homosexual acts are sinful in and of themselves, whether the participants have a license for it from the state, or their church, or neither.

And, wishing to point out the obvious, yet sometimes forgotten counterpoint, so are extramarital heterosexual acts.

[Chris Smith]

In the LDS religion (as i'm sure you already know), the fundamental unit of Heaven is the family, comprised of a man and woman sealed in a relationship which is capable of creating eternal offspring.

Yes, I mentioned that in my post. (See assumption #2.) But what I'm pointing out is that while eternal procreation is an important part of celestial marriage, it is not a part of marriages for "time". And while the LDS Church generally regards marriage for time as a lesser path, it does not, to my knowledge, regard it as a sin or an abomination. So if the reason for rejecting gay marriage is that it is non-procreative and therefore non-celestial, that wouldn't seem to exclude gay marriage for time.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Kenngo1969]

I think the chance of this is about the same as Hell freezing over, bluntly.

Which reminds me:

Subject: When Engineers go to Hell

An engineer dies and reports to the Pearly Gates. Saint Peter checks his dossier and, not seeing his name there, accidentally sends him to Hell.

It doesn't take long before the engineer becomes rather dissatisfied with the level of comfort in Hell. He soon begins to design and build improvements. Shortly thereafter, Hell has air conditioning, flush toilets and escalators. Needless to say, the engineer is a pretty popular guy.

One day, God calls Satan and says with a sneer: "So, how are things in Hell?"

Satan replies: "Hey, things are going great. We've got air conditioning, flush toilets, and escalators. And there's no telling what this engineeris going to come up with next."

"What!?" God exclaims: "You've got an engineer? That's a mistake - he should never have been sent to Hell. Send him to me."

"Not a chance," Satan replies: "I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him!"

God insists: "Send him back or I'll sue."

Satan laughs uproariously and answers: "Yeah, right. And where are you going to get a lawyer?"

As someone with a law degree (you'll notice I did not say I'm a lawyer, because I'm not) I find that incredibly funny!

Edited April 8, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I wouldn't think it "inferior," since some widows from a temple marriage marry "for time" with men who cannot marry them in the temple (they are already sealed to someone). The same applies to widowers who marry an already sealed widow. Moreover, such marriages can be performed at home or in the chapel without any stigma attaching.

Marriages can take place anywhere. By contrast, sealings, even those which occur for time only because the partners both are sealed to other partners who have passed on, occur in a temple. See Handbook 1, Section 3.5.2, page 17.

[Stargazer]

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a taxonomic logic that would make it possible to say why all "homosexual acts" are classified as sinful and to determine the boundaries of that category.

The solution I proposed is based on the assumptions that 1) homosexual acts are wrong because all sex outside marriage is wrong, and 2) gay marriage is not recognized by the Church because it isn't procreative and therefore doesn't meet the standard for celestial exaltation. If that's the logic, then there would seem to be some wiggle room with regard to gay chapel marriages and sex within those marriages.

But maybe you're working with a different logic.

Not everything God forbids or commands is subject to logical analysis. So just why is homosexual sexual activity sinful? Answer: we don't know, because He never gave a reason. He just said "No." If you attempt to evolve logical reasons for it, you must of course be prepared to advocate for your logic. What if your logic is defeated by a cunning interlocutor? Well, it proves nothing, ultimately. Because your logical explanation isn't necessarily God's.

The idea that the reason for God forbidding homosexual sexual activity is because it isn't procreative is bogus, in my view. It is easily swept aside by logical holes, such as "What if a man and woman are sterile?" Then they should not have sex either, under this logic.

It remains the case that God said it was forbidden. The reason isn't given. But it was clearly forbidden. If that's insufficient for you, Chris, then there's nothing I can add to it.

Under the circumstances of this thread I should like to point out that positing a "procreative" justification for the homosexual proscription and then demolishing that justification to great fanfare by logic amounts to setting up a straw man and then dramatically knocking him over..

[Stargazer]

Because God said so. That is really the bottom line. We can speculate as to the purpose of marriage as a way to raise up seed- but as with all commandments it is God's instructions as revealed in the scriptures and through prophets that guides our practices.

The boundaries according to the LDS are sexual acts outside of a marriage between an man and a women. That includes hetero as well as homosexual acts.

Apparently I am channelling KevinG today.