Healthy Approaches To Support Glbt Lds Is A Topic On Mormon Matters Podcast

[wenglund]

I have no homosexual children. I do not have friends who have homosexual children that I know of. And I am not homosexual. So this is not really very useful to me personally. I have never seen anyone in the Church who was homosexual get rejected by the Church, excommunicated or even disfellowshipped. And I have seen quite a bit of the Church.

Homosexuality is a big deal to those affected but the number affected is very small relative to the rest of us. And, homosexuals are not discriminated against generally, in fact they have all kinds of protected status and so on.

To me, this issue gets talked about in a general public way -- out of proportion to the fraction of the population involved.

Exactly!! We are talking about between 1 to 4% of the population. From what I can tell, there have been far more people who have died from alcohol-related auto accidents each year than die from homosexuality. There are far more people out of work and on some form of welfare than there are people who self-identify as homosexual. There are considerably more families that are torn apart because of infidelity or pornography than are torn apart because of homosexuality. I could go on and on.

Yet, when we look at discussion topics and news reports and the like, one might get the impression that the biggest issue facing society these days is the supposed woes of the homosexual community--as if nobody else has problems.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

No I don't accept the sin of fornication also. So I see their need to get married. But yeah, it's a tough situation for them. They are definitely in a catch 22.

Per revelation - see proclamation to the family - same sex marriage is not an option. Creating a separate class of "marriage" just to redefine homosexual relations just to get around the fornication label doesn't seem like something God would approve. Perhaps we could redefine heterosexual fornication as keeping a concubine - 2nd class wife - and make it acceptable for temple recommend purposes.

[Tacenda]

Per revelation - see proclamation to the family - same sex marriage is not an option. Creating a separate class of "marriage" just to redefine homosexual relations just to get around the fornication label doesn't seem like something God would approve. Perhaps we could redefine heterosexual fornication as keeping a concubine - 2nd class wife - and make it acceptable for temple recommend purposes.

Well, today in Utah, the local news announced that Cody and his wives, of the show "Sister Wives", are suing the state over the current law. Apparently they don't want any laws hanging over their head. Or the constant worry of prosecution. So your comment over a second wife, might actually become a reality one day, especially if gays are able to marry legally. So in that respect I see the argument for marriage to be between one man and one woman. Edited July 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Well, today in Utah, the local news announced that Cody and his wives, of the show "Sister Wives", are suing the state over the current law. Apparently they don't want any laws hanging over their head. Or the constant worry of prosecution. So your comment over a second wife, might actually become a reality one day, especially if gays are able to marry legally. So in that respect I see the argument for marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Comment was tongue in cheek.

[Tacenda]

Comment was tongue in cheek.

I know, so was my comment, sort of.

[Tacenda]

double post

Edited July 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

I will follow the LDS Church lead, which is support of gay rights.

What is your definition of gay rights and how is the lds church upholding your definition?

[why me]

And what if the test is not about "gay rights" but about standing our ground in the face of rampant and in-your-face immorality?

That is the problem. The other problem is that in America many groups wish their rights to be upheld or they struggle for their rights to be recognized. And at times these rights conflict with the religious beliefs of the many especially when religious faith is compromised.

The subject of gay rights began to change when Hollywood began to have sitcoms with gays are major characters. There was a time when many shows had a gay person in it or a gay couple in it. Gayness became part of the mainstream and a part of everyday life. Of course these sitcoms and shows softened the public attitude about the gay agenda. And this is what the lds church and the catholic church is feeling today from the public: a softening of attitude and a backlash if institution do not support that attitude.

And quite a few mormons, especially the younger ones, support various gay rights issues, thus, the mormon contingent in the gay pride parade.

Here is an interesting article from the washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-head-of-human-rights-campaign-aims-to-stop-losing-streak-for-gay-marriage/2012/07/25/gJQARmNt9W_print.html

Edited July 26, 2012 by why me

[Libs]

I think you're right about confusing the two. I want the gays to have the right to marry. But I also see the other side of the coin. So, like my feelings about the church, I'm a middle wayer once again. No clear cut answers yet. I'm afraid though, what if this could be a test for us as humans, to accept the gays in every facet. What if God wants that for them? So many "what ifs" to think about here. Just like before with the blacks, I guess we have to wait for revelation to know, just as you said in one of your posts above.

(Bolded mine) That is exactly the very deep impression I have had, for along time, Tacenda.

[why me]

Well, today in Utah, the local news announced that Cody and his wives, of the show "Sister Wives", are suing the state over the current law. Apparently they don't want any laws hanging over their head. Or the constant worry of prosecution.

And yet, if we push the subject of human rights to the fore we can say that men should have a right to marry more than one woman. Who has the right to deny love and marriage regardless if the man loves one woman or two and if all wish to be married what should stop them? They should have a right to do so. And the envelop keeps on getting pushed.

Also, as TV begins to show polygamy in normal situations as in Big Love and in reality shows, peoples ideas about it will also begin to soften and it will not be that long into the future when polygamists will want their rights honored too. Evenually, the concept of family becomes whatever someone wants it to be.

Edited July 26, 2012 by why me

[ERayR]

(Bolded mine) That is exactly the very deep impression I have had, for along time, Tacenda.

Why the Proclamation to the Family then?

[why me]

(Bolded mine) That is exactly the very deep impression I have had, for along time, Tacenda.

Would you support the rights of men wishing to marrying more than one woman and women wanting the right to be polygamous? And what if god wishes this to be the case? Of course, there hasn't been a revelation on the subject, just a human rights issue as is the case now with the gay marriage issue.

[why me]

Why the Proclamation to the Family then?

I think that it is debatable that this is doctrine. It is not in the D&C.

[ERayR]

I think that it is debatable that this is doctrine. It is not in the D&C.

I think you are confusing scripture with doctrine.

[treehugger]

Would you support the rights of men wishing to marrying more than one woman and women wanting the right to be polygamous? And what if god wishes this to be the case? Of course, there hasn't been a revelation on the subject, just a human rights issue as is the case now with the gay marriage issue.

whyme, iirc it is the traditional family values group that supports polygamy. I am willing to wager many faithful temple attending members who would support polygamy but not support same sex marriage.

[why me]

I think you are confusing scripture with doctrine.

I think that you will find people who think that the proclamation is a 'wish list'. It is also not scripture nor doctrine. It is just a proclamation for an ideal situation. It needs to be in the canon for it to have 'meat'.

[why me]

whyme, iirc it is the traditional family values group that supports polygamy. I am willing to wager many faithful temple attending members who would support polygamy but not support same sex marriage.

I am talking about the average joe and jane, being polygamists not based on religion but on lifestyle. Why should that lifestyle be denied would go the argument. Joe and Jane have a human right to be polygamists. The envelope gets pushed further along. At the moment it is against the law to be a polygamist.

[Tacenda]

I am talking about the average joe and jane, being polygamNJists not based on religion but on lifestyle. Why should that lifestyle be denied would go the argument. Joe and Jane have a human right to be polygamists. The envelope gets pushed further along. At the moment it is against the law to be a polyamist.

Not for long I'm afraid. It's practically legal now, as long as the polygamist aren't breaking the law with abuse charges, Utah law enforcement, admitingly, look the other way. Maybe, we should keep the status quo with current marriage laws, and if gays want marriage it'll have to be like polygamists do, have it done in a spiritual ceremony only. And the swing of deciding if gay marriage is right, keeps moving back and forth, in my confused head...... Edited July 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[Libs]

Would you support the rights of men wishing to marrying more than one woman and women wanting the right to be polygamous? And what if god wishes this to be the case? Of course, there hasn't been a revelation on the subject, just a human rights issue as is the case now with the gay marriage issue.

I would support that, for consenting adults, but I really think that is a different issue than sexual orientation.

[Libs]

Why the Proclamation to the Family then?

I just went and read it again. It has been awhile.

I don't have a problem with most of it, Ray. There are some wonderful and inspired things in the Proclamation. I am not going to be so presumptuous as to critique it.

[why me]

I would support that, for consenting adults, but I really think that is a different issue than sexual orientation.

If the issue is over a human right, then it is not much different at all. If you read the post article, you will discover that there was an effort by the gay community to soften ameircan attitudes through hollywood and sitcoms by bringing one aspect of the gay lifestyle into the average living room. If we go back 20 years people would be appalled by gay marriage. But now, people are less appalled mainly do to sitcoms like Will and Grace etc. So, now we have gay marriage as a human right.

But when should human rights be denied to anyone? Brother wishes to marry sister? Yes or no? If they love each other why not? Polygamy? Polyandry? And what constitutes a family? In the past it was very clear: husband and wife. And now....?

[treehugger]

But when should human rights be denied to anyone? Brother wishes to marry sister? Yes or no? If they love each other why not? Polygamy? Polyandry? And what constitutes a family? In the past it was very clear: husband and wife. And now....?

Such questions demonstrates a unwillingness to understand the issue of same sex marriage.

For starters, how about you explain why, presently in the US a brother (biological or otherwise) can not marry his sister (biological or otherwise), and you can't just say "it is illegal", surely you can proffer legally acceptable reasoning for why family members are prohibited from marrying. (I am aware that at least one US state allows non-reproductive first cousins to marry)

[why me]

Such questions demonstrates a unwillingness to understand the issue of same sex marriage.

For starters, how about you explain why, presently in the US a brother (biological or otherwise) can not marry his sister (biological or otherwise), and you can't just say "it is illegal", surely you can proffer legally acceptable reasoning for why family members are prohibited from marrying. (I am aware that at least one US state allows non-reproductive first cousins to marry)

In some parts of the world it is perfectly acceptable for first cousins to marry. But the question is as we push the envelope farther down the table: should it be a human right for brother and sister to marry? Now we find this crazy but going back 20 years or so, it was also crazy to consider gay marriage. Now gay rights advocates would claim that same sex marriage is a human right.

It terms of marriage when should a human right be denied?

[california boy]

Exactly!! We are talking about between 1 to 4% of the population. From what I can tell, there have been far more people who have died from alcohol-related auto accidents each year than die from homosexuality. There are far more people out of work and on some form of welfare than there are people who self-identify as homosexual. There are considerably more families that are torn apart because of infidelity or pornography than are torn apart because of homosexuality. I could go on and on.

Yet, when we look at discussion topics and news reports and the like, one might get the impression that the biggest issue facing society these days is the supposed woes of the homosexual community--as if nobody else has problems.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

EnglandI somewhat agree with you. YIKES. There is far too much attention paid to gays by the church and by the media.

There are far more members that are alcoholics, addicted to porn, committing adultery and fortification then there are gay members. Yet for some (I find strange) reason, the church felt it should get politically involved in gay marriage. I mean how many gay Mormons want to get married compared to all the straight sexual sin that is going on in the church?? Yet this is the line in the sand that the church chose to seek a political solution on. Just how big of problem was gay marriage in the church to justify asking members to give millions to fight it in such a public way? Given the time and resources the church and it's members have poured in to this one moral issue, you would think it was the most immoral thing going on in the world today. Like you said, only 1-4% of the population identifies as being gay.

I remember when blacks were fighting against discrimination they were subjected to. It was on the news every night. A lot of people were tired of hearing about it every night on the news. They didn't want to hear one more time "black is beautiful" They didn't want the Mexico City Olympics to be "politicized" They didn't want rioting in the streets and burning of businesses. They didn't want to hear from that black activist Martin Luther King any more. Once civil right laws were passed, all the hype and argument played out in the media nightly concerning blacks civil rights went away. I think the same thing will happen when the courts and legislatures give gay's their civil rights as well. In a couple of years, this issue will no longer be in the news. DOMA will be appealed. Gay marriage will be legal. It will be illegal to discriminate against gays on employment, housing and other basic human rights. People will calm down and once again, accept the fact that ALL Americans have the right for equality in this country.

Mormons will live with the idea that the world may have a different view of what is moral and what is not. Parents will teach their children what their standards are and explain to them that there are some outside the church that don't follow the same standards that Mormons have. Members will quit defending discrimination. And gay rights will no longer be disproportionally discussed.

[Libs]

Yes, there are valid health concerns, when close relatives marry and have offspring. That was a real problem within royal families in Europe.

That said, my great grandparents were first cousins, so that hasn't always been a taboo. People didn't know about the genetic defects that could be "doubled" in incident, when close relatives married. Once that concern was known, marrying a close relative became a concern and was outlawed.