Why Do Mormons Care If Homosexuals Can Marry? A Spin Off From My Recent Prop 8 Vs. Constitution Thread.

[Bikeemikey]

In another thread Californiaboy posted the following:

california boy, on 06 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

The real question for this thread is why would the Mormon church even care if the Supreme Court allowed gays to marry? How would it effect your religious beliefs. How would it effect your ability to teach your children the values that the church has? What personal effect would gay marriage have on anyone in the church?

Below was my response:

Those are great questions.

I have been thinking through the same questions. Here are a few plausible responses from a few LDS perspectives I have heard.

LDS believe in salvation - that is the point of our lives on earth.

Our salvation is related to our moral actions.

Homosexuality (as an immoral action) would get in the way of salvation (at least many LDS would make this claim).

The govt is a monolithic entity that will/can impact people's private (moral) decisions.

As such, it is an entity will/can impact people's salvation.

In virtue of the govts capacity to impact an individuals salvation the have an obligation to impact it positively.

Therefore legislation should enhance the principles that lead to salvation, even at the expense of some (individual) freedoms.

There are a number of critiques to this - wont tackle them now.

Another common idea is that even though enhanced tolerance of immoral principles (that violate the standards necessary for salvation) don't impact my capacity to teach my principles to my family and church community, such tolerance of immoral practices will reduce the chance that such teachings will stick/be followed by my children etc.

As such I have an obligation to enhance the likelihood that my family attain salvation by limiting the prevalence of immoral actions in the communities I live in. If I can use the govt to do this I ought, even if by doing so i am using the govt to limit others freedom (a theological paternalism if you will).

None of this is irrational. It is a cost benefit analysis where all metrics are skewed toward salvation over freedom. It is both reasonable and rational. Govt already limits some freedoms of individuals in favor of greater benefits for the community (the whole we gain more than we lose - there have been some good quotes on this topic earlier in the thread).

The question from a theological perspective is whether one who is compelled by govts to live a certain way would be eligible to "salvation" anyway. Is Salvation as much about the actions we would have made (had the context been different) as it is about actions we did make?

In my opinion you are not going to change most LDS people's mind engaging them at a political level... You have to address the theological underpinnings related to the govts capacity/role in salvation. Something that may actually not be wrong , though personally I think the ideas above are not valid.

Here is my question that I would like to hear from people on:

I am interested in other peoples arguments into why we care about the marriage of homosexuals being acceptable within our communities, but not being required to follow this within our church communities. Is this based on our political or religious understandings of the world, or some hybrid there of?

Edited October 6, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Saints Alive]

Frankly I don't care if they marry. I just don't want the church to be forced to recognize such marriages. I know, I know everyone say that wont happen so just call me sceptical.

On another note, What happens when a civilly married gay couple wants to join the church? Must they get a divorce?

[Bikeemikey]

Frankly I don't care if they marry. I just don't want the church to be forced to recognize such marriages. I know, I know everyone say that wont happen so just call me sceptical.

On another note, What happens when a civilly married gay couple wants to join the church? Must they get a divorce?

I don't understand the second comment...

So you did not support prop 8? Or you did? For those that do care, and obviously here are many, is it primarily political or theological? If theological what are their arguments?

[rpn]

I'm not persuaded that the church does care if they marry (the church doesn't oppose domestic registries, for instance). The church absolutely does care that society is abandoning the god given definition of what marriage is and how society and the Lord's purposes to preserve the designated basic eternal unit of divine governance. Marriage has been taking a really big hit for some time and we (and our innocent children who need a father and a mother to teach them and love them and show them what family means, and thus a little of what God is like) cannot afford to continue or encourage its eventual complete disintegration by calling all relationships by that title.

[swfarnsworth]

If you haven't noticed from my previous posts, I am SSAed, though I still oppose the idea of civil unions being considered equal to marriage because it is not in the best interest of children to be raised by two same-sex parents, especially in situations where there are enough hetero couples to adopt all the up-for-adoption children. This is obviously a great sacrifice for me, but a sacrifice I have to make nonetheless.

I'm not sure if the battle over whether or not to apply the word "marriage" to same-sex couples is worth fighting, since that's not directly connected to the adoption of children by gay couples. The latter fight is still worth fighting, and I join in it at immense sacrifice to myself.

[Garden Girl]

Frankly I don't care if they marry. I just don't want the church to be forced to recognize such marriages. I know, I know everyone say that wont happen so just call me sceptical.

On another note, What happens when a civilly married gay couple wants to join the church? Must they get a divorce?

Or go to the temple?

GG

[DavidB]

A gay couple would have to divorce, repent of their sins, accept Christ etc before being baptized into the LDS church.

Gay marriage would not negate homosexual behavior.

Edited October 6, 2012 by DavidB

[Zeta-Flux]

Two words: mission creep.

If SSM is legitimized, it will change the meaning and mission of marriage in our society. That creep has already begun, with many people thinking that marriage is simply the government's stamp of approval on loving relationships.

This is contributed to, in many ways, because people confuse their personal reasons for marrying (which, in a majority of cases do basically boil down to wanting to solemnize a loving relationship) with the public, societal need for a stable structure in which to create and raise children by their biological parents.

One of the most telling examples of this confusion is when pressed on the issue, those in favor of SSM often state that a child does not benefit by being raised by a father and a mother.

[RobertAC]

I have not heard a position that would explain why the LDS leadership took such a strong stance in support of Prop 8 and against gay marriage. What I have heard is that for some Mormons there is conflict over this position because they too came from nontraditional families (i.e. polygamist families). Moreover, families that currently practice polygamy are also watching the gay marriage debate to see if a Constitutional right to polygamy may be argued. This would be a strange byproduct of gay marriage being legally recognized, but one that does not logically seem so farfetched. I have to wonder if the LDS leadership is concerned in some way that polygamy may be legalized and return to Utah as a viable institution.

(As an aside: IIronically, Mitt Romney, one of the most prominent Mormons right now who has come out against gay marriage as being "nontraditional" is himself a product of nontraditional family. Members of the Romney practiced polygamy. Indeed, this was an important reason why the Romneys were in Mexico.)

[Saints Alive]

(As an aside: IIronically, Mitt Romney, one of the most prominent Mormons right now who has come out against gay marriage as being "nontraditional" is himself a product of nontraditional family. Members of the Romney practiced polygamy. Indeed, this was an important reason why the Romneys were in Mexico.)

Um... I think his great grandfather was the last one to practice polygamy. I don't think mitt was ever exposed to it

[RobertAC]

Um... I think his great grandfather was the last one to practice polygamy. I don't think mitt was ever exposed to it

A few grandparents and uncles practiced it. It was an important part of their lives. Mitt would have been exposed to it because its part of his family history. Ironically, Mormons, as a group, seem more interested in family history and connections than the general population.

From my personal interactions with Mormons who have family members who practiced polygamy in their past, there remains today some real anger as to how the family was treated when polygamy suddenly became illegal. Those days may be gone, but they are far from forgotten.

[Saints Alive]

I think you are a little off the mark

[Skylla]

We have multiple threads with the same theme right now. Thread closed.

Skylla