Homosexuality And The Purpose Of The Chruch

[Akboy]

To be clear, I'm in complete agreement that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and same-sex marriage is not Biblical. But does that really mean the church should actively oppose same-sex marriage(SSM)? I'm suggesting they shouldn't.

I believe it all comes down to what the purpose of the church is in the world. What is the church's priority when it comes to interacting with non-believers? Is it to get everyone to follow God's rules? Or is it to spread the gospel and make disciples of all nations? If it's the former, then making traditional marriage the law of the land makes sense. But hopefully most believers see the latter as the priority. Protestants, evangelicals and LDS disagree on quite a few things, including what the gospel is, but it seems like they agree the gospel should be our priority. So why are we letting SSM dominate so many conversations?

Besides, what would a traditional marriage law actually stop? Same-sex couples have been living together for many years. Other than a few tax laws and a government document saying they're married, what's the difference between a same-sex couple living together and a traditional marriage?

Compare that with the issue of abortion. I recently saw a pamphlet in my church from an anti-abortion ministry which talked about how the ministry had counseled thousands of women, saved the lives of thousands of babies, and saw many of the mothers make a commitment to Christ. The anti-abortion movement is stopping sin, saving lives and making disciples. Can the anti-SSM movement claim similar results? Have you heard of someone changing their homosexual lifestyle because they heard an anti-SSM message?

One argument I've heard is that allowing SSM will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt kids and raise them with a skewed view of marriage. In a perfect world, which still needs adoptions for some reason, I would agree with that. But the reality is many kids end up going to foster homes which don't always make the child's well being the priority. I'd rather see kids go with same-sex couples who genuinely want to raise them in a loving family than with a foster parent who cares more about their paycheck than the kid.

I'm not suggesting any church should support SSM. We can still maintain a doctrinal and philosophical resistance to SSM without trying to make a law about it. We agree on doctrinal and philosophical resistances to other sins like lying and adultery, yet I haven't heard of any movements to make laws about them.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Akboy

[Somebodyz]

One argument I've heard is that allowing SSM will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt kids and raise them with a skewed view of marriage. In a perfect world, which still needs adoptions for some reason, I would agree with that. But the reality is many kids end up going to foster homes which don't always make the child's well being the priority. I'd rather see kids go with same-sex couples who genuinely want to raise them in a loving family than with a foster parent who cares more about their paycheck than the kid.

Perhaps a survey should be done of adoptees. There are many forums, were loads of adoptees would tell you they'd rather not be adopted at all. Especially in the States, were until very recently(the law has allowed some access in some states but ages differ widely), they could not get access to their own records. Couldn't find out their own medical history...even about their own race. Lucky one's are adopted by parents, who are willing to pass on information or have an open adoption. No other group of people have their identities, names etc, legally stolen from them. Did you know in the states you can die for your country, drink, drive, all before you allowed access to your own history.

So even if agree ssm is a sin, you think it's good for children to be raised in that situation. Have there been studies, or are adoptees once again going to be guinea pigs.

[rodheadlee]

I believe the reason the Church takes a stance against SSM is because if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The SSM agenda is to force their way into the Church and force us to seal them in the temple.

http://www.telegraph...-in-church.html

edited to add: If it stopped at Civil Union it would be fine but if you read the above article the folks in Denmark already had Civil Union.

Edited August 10, 2012 by rodheadlee

[Akboy]

So even if agree ssm is a sin, you think it's good for children to be raised in that situation. Have there been studies, or are adoptees once again going to be guinea pigs.

Parents have countless ways to sin and mess up their kids. Are kids with same-sex parents worse off than those with parents who frequently get into heated arguments? What about parents who raise kids with an atheistic, materialist mindset?

[ERayR]

Let's cut through all the rhetoric. Whose job is it if it isn't the churches and their people to stand against sin.

[Somebodyz]

Parents have countless ways to sin and mess up their kids. Are kids with same-sex parents worse off than those with parents who frequently get into heated arguments? What about parents who raise kids with an atheistic, materialist mindset?

Just because you are in a ssm doesn't mean you won't get into heated arguments or raise children with atheistic, materialist mindsets. These aren't puppies you're experimenting with. I'm sure someone posted on here in the past, with surveys showing violence, was higher in ss relationships, also having more break ups and partners.

IMO adoption the way we have it these days isn't how it was done in the Bible. There those taken in, weren't robbed of their identities, heritage etc.

[Damien the Leper]

Let's cut through all the BS and accept the fact that the Rule of Religion, theocracy, etc., are of little relevance to the world at large. People are tired of being controlled by religion and there is no reason to be subjected to such nonsense. Religion can leave government alone and government can leave religion alone.

[guerreiro9]

I believe the Church of Jesus Christ should actively oppose the acceptance into society of any behavior that they deem harmful. I would expect no less from any other church or any other organization that claims to stand for something (whatever it may be).

I am personally against the acceptance and normalization of the same sex lifestyle into our culture. I believe that our sexuality is strongly influenced by our culture (fact), and this includes whether we choose to engage in a homosexual lifestyle (debated, but I believe it to be the case). If it is the case, the more we accept and celebrate (seen any recent sitcoms?) the homosexual lifestyle, the more people will choose to engage in it. I do not believe this is an issue that will occur in a vacuum. All of us will be affected by this, and one way or another it will define who we are as a culture.

[ERayR]

Let's cut through all the BS and accept the fact that the Rule of Religion, theocracy, etc., are of little relevance to the world at large. People are tired of being controlled by religion and there is no reason to be subjected to such nonsense. Religion can leave government alone and government can leave religion alone.

And there lies the problem. There are too many areas of overlap, marriage being but one of them. Marriage, originally being a religious sacrament has been co-opted by the government. Governments having co-opted it continue to alter and change the meaning of marriage to the detriment of the churches. The churches not only have the right but a duty to keep this erosion of a religious sacrament from going any further.

As to relevance of religion in today's world, It is still relevant whether anybody accepts that relevance or not. Organizations like the LGBT and others have been making small but steady erosion's into the churches using government as a lever for probably 50 years or more. So lets cut the BS about leaving who alone.

[Glenn101]

Parents have countless ways to sin and mess up their kids. Are kids with same-sex parents worse off than those with parents who frequently get into heated arguments? What about parents who raise kids with an atheistic, materialist mindset?

You are arguing from a weak position here. Reported domestic violence is significantly higher among gay couples than heterosexual couples. I will provide references if you wish, but a quick Google will provide plenty of information.

Glenn

[guerreiro9]

I do not believe that the US government should recognize any ordinance or sacrament performed by a religious organization as legally binding, but for some reason they have. Since the beginning of American culture (and even before), the government has recognized the religious sacrament of marriage as legally binding. They freely give authority to religious figures to perform legally binding ceremonies. As far as I am aware there is no other religious activity that has been given official legal status. I am also unaware of any other instance where religions have been given authority to act for the government. In my opinion the government needs to get out of the marriage business. They have set ample precedence which has established that marriage is a religious ceremony including giving authority to religious leaders to perform legally binding marriages.

I think governments are well within theirs rights to establish civil unions in whatever manner they see fit, but they should not interfere with marriages which by the governments own actions have been viewed as religious ceremonies.

[KevinG]

Endorsing as family arrangements contrary to the eternal nature of the family does not strike me as bringing people unto Christ or insuring their eternal joy. While I can allow all mankind to worship or not according to the dictates of their own conscience I am not compelled to endorse practices contrary to the gospel and claim they are consistent with eternal principles I am familiar with.

Edited August 10, 2012 by KevinG

[ERayR]

I do not believe that the US government should recognize any ordinance or sacrament performed by a religious organization as legally binding, but for some reason they have. Since the beginning of American culture (and even before), the government has recognized the religious sacrament of marriage as legally binding. They freely give authority to religious figures to perform legally binding ceremonies. As far as I am aware there is no other religious activity that has been given official legal status. I am also unaware of any other instance where religions have been given authority to act for the government. In my opinion the government needs to get out of the marriage business. They have set ample precedence which has established that marriage is a religious ceremony including giving authority to religious leaders to perform legally binding marriages.

I think governments are well within theirs rights to establish civil unions in whatever manner they see fit, but they should not interfere with marriages which by the governments own actions have been viewed as religious ceremonies.

The reason they have is that they have co-opted the religious sacrament of marriage as their own. After doing that they couldn't very well leave the churches out. The just add few more governmental "refinements" whenever they think the churches aren't looking.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

To be clear, I'm in complete agreement that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and same-sex marriage is not Biblical. But does that really mean the church should actively oppose same-sex marriage(SSM)? I'm suggesting they shouldn't.

I believe it all comes down to what the purpose of the church is in the world. What is the church's priority when it comes to interacting with non-believers? Is it to get everyone to follow God's rules? Or is it to spread the gospel and make disciples of all nations? If it's the former, then making traditional marriage the law of the land makes sense. But hopefully most believers see the latter as the priority. Protestants, evangelicals and LDS disagree on quite a few things, including what the gospel is, but it seems like they agree the gospel should be our priority. So why are we letting SSM dominate so many conversations?

If we are any others not do what we know to be right we have lost the high moral ground. After that laws will compel us to perform such marriages in our Church and Temples...marriage than cannot bear fruit.

[wenglund]

Let's cut through all the BS and accept the fact that the Rule of Religion, theocracy, etc., are of little relevance to the world at large. People are tired of being controlled by religion and there is no reason to be subjected to such nonsense. Religion can leave government alone and government can leave religion alone.

This is, itself, utter nonsense, at least in terms of democracies where each individual is given a vote that allows them to express their preferences and attempt to interject their views, values, and morals into the body politic, including those that are religious-based. This is not only constitutionally permissible (up to the point where the government establishes a religion), but also constitutionally mandated (so as to allow the free expression of religion).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

I believe the Church of Jesus Christ (or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) should actively oppose the acceptance into society of any behavior that they deem harmful. I would expect no less from any other church or any other organization that claims to stand for something (whatever it may be).

You are, of course, welcome to your own activism and opinion. No one is challenging that.

I am personally against the acceptance and normalization of the same sex lifestyle into our culture. I believe that our sexuality is strongly influenced by our culture (fact), and this includes whether we choose to engage in a homosexual lifestyle (debated, but I believe it to be the case). If it is the case, the more we accept and celebrate (seen any recent sitcoms?) the homosexual lifestyle, the more people will choose to engage in it. I do not believe this is an issue that will occur in a vacuum. All of us will be affected by this, and one way or another it will define who we are as a culture.

I find it to be a disservice to certain members of the LGBT community to have stereotypes (no matter how true for certain people and groups of people) shoved down their throats. I don't much care for generalizations especially when the community such generalizations are targeting hit close to home (whether they be based on sexual orientation or religion). The sitcoms are not the norm for many of us and those of us whom it does not represent deserve not to be objectified by such.

[guerreiro9]

The reason they have is that they have co-opted the religious sacrament of marriage as their own. After doing that they couldn't very well leave the churches out. The just add few more governmental "refinements" whenever they think the churches aren't looking.

Yes, in many ways this is exactly what has been done. We would find it odd and probably very outrageous if the government began passing laws establishing what constitutes a legally binding baptism. By the governments own actions they have accepted marriage as a religious ceremony. As I mentioned in a previous post, my personal opinion is that this relationship should end. The government should not recognize as legally binding anything performed by a religion (including marriages), and the government should not seek to define religious ceremonies (including marriages).

[Damien the Leper]

This is, itself, utter nonsense, at least in terms of democracies where each individual is given a vote that allows them to express their preferences and attempt to interject their views, values, and morals into the body politic, including those that are religious-based. This is not only constitutionally permissible (up to the point where the government establishes a religion), but also constitutionally mandated (so as to allow the free expression of religion).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are, of course, right, Wade. But persons are also granted, constitutionally speaking, the freedom FROM religion. And if such a camp perseveres against the rule of religion or, more ridiculously and pretentiously termed, theocracy then so be it.

People have a right to religion just as much as people have a right NOT to be ruled by it. It's simple liberties.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Valentinus

[happy]

You are, of course, right, Wade. But persons are also granted, constitutionally speaking, the freedom FROM religion. And if such a camp perseveres against the rule of religion or, more ridiculously and pretentiously termed, theocracy.

People have a right to religion just as much as people have a right NOT to be ruled by it. It's simple liberties.

Constitutionally speaking, you would fail to find such a concept in the constitution.

[ERayR]

Yes, in many ways this is exactly what has been done. We would find it odd and probably very outrageous if the government began passing laws establishing what constitutes a legally binding baptism. By the governments own actions they have accepted marriage as a religious ceremony. As I mentioned in a previous post, my personal opinion is that this relationship should end. The government should not recognize as legally binding anything performed by a religion (including marriages), and the government should not seek to define religious ceremonies (including marriages).

Not a good idea for the government to stop accepting anything from religions or their people. Religions and people live under the government so should have a say but in the case of the US the majority rules with certain protections for minorities.

Study history if one wanted a marriage they went to the church where they were married and it was duly recorded. If they just wanted a union they just lived together. When it was slavery or lords and serfs it was no big deal but as the rights to own and transfer property to heirs recorded marriages seemed a good way of keeping track so governments co-oped controll of marriages and licensed those who were allowed to perform them.

[ERayR]

You are, of course, right, Wade. But persons are also granted, constitutionally speaking, the freedom FROM religion. And if such a camp perseveres against the rule of religion or, more ridiculously and pretentiously termed, theocracy.

People have a right to religion just as much as people have a right NOT to be ruled by it. It's simple liberties.

See post #9 above.

[Damien the Leper]

And there lies the problem. There are too many areas of overlap, marriage being but one of them. Marriage, originally being a religious sacrament has been co-opted by the government. Governments having co-opted it continue to alter and change the meaning of marriage to the detriment of the churches. The churches not only have the right but a duty to keep this erosion of a religious sacrament from going any further.

This is audacious. If people wanted to be ruled by religious moralism then the Church (not simplistically the LDS church) would still be at the head of government or atleast a balance to it. Religion is only for those who personally adhere to it. Because I am not a member of ANY church at this time then I am in no way subject to any religious rule or perception of moralism or ethics. This is my right as a human being and a citizen of this country.

Once again, tradition is not synonymous with 'correct' or 'normal'. It is a cultural mindset and opinion. Thankfully, the term marriage (and marriage licenses) do not belong to religion or churches.

As to relevance of religion in today's world, It is still relevant whether anybody accepts that relevance or not. Organizations like the LGBT and others have been making small but steady erosion's into the churches using government as a lever for probably 50 years or more. So lets cut the BS about leaving who alone.

Let's cut all the BS then. Churches who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have every right to enforce such morals and ethics solely within the confines of their religious base. Likewise, LGBT have no right to impose their morals or ethics on churches. It is an agreement to disagree.

[Damien the Leper]

Constitutionally speaking, you would fail to find such a concept in the constitution.

So you are saying that everyone is entitled to be ruled by religion and religious opinion but have no liberties to live freely from religion? This isn't constitutionally correct...ya know...constitutionally speaking. This would be ridiculous and downright ignorant.

[Damien the Leper]

See post #9 above.

See post #22 above.

[ERayR]

This is audacious. If people wanted to be ruled by religious moralism then the Church (not simplistically the LDS church) would still be at the head of government or atleast a balance to it. Religion is only for those who personally adhere to it. Because I am not a member of ANY church at this time then I am in no way subject to any religious rule or perception of moralism or ethics. This is my right as a human being and a citizen of this country.

Once again, tradition is not synonymous with 'correct' or 'normal'. It is a cultural mindset and opinion. Thankfully, the term marriage (and marriage licenses) do not belong to religion or churches.

What is audacious is your idea that religious people should have no input in the government they live under, that only people who don't want religious principles involved have the right to rule. Audacious in the extreme.

Let's cut all the BS then. Churches who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have every right to enforce such morals and ethics solely within the confines of their religious base. Likewise, LGBT have no right to impose their morals or ethics on churches. It is an agreement to disagree.

Too much overlap in the interests of both groups.