Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[california boy]

Aside from the patently inane and offensive comparison between racial discrimination and sexual orientation or redefining the legal definition of marriage, let alone the point of government involvement I was speaking to, gay people have always had the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. But, they don't want equal rights as heterosexuals. They want to invent a new right--a right to marry someone of the same sex, and right that is unavoidably unequal with the current right.

This is quite the opposite from what blacks were advocating during the civil rights movement. They wanted the same rights as whites. They wanted to eat in the same cafeterias, watch movies in the same part of the theaters, live in the same neighborhoods, ride in the same sections of the bus, attend the same schools, work at the same jobs, be able to vote the same, and influence society the same, and be elected to the same offices, etc., just the same as whites. They weren't looking for something different that they confusedly called the same or equal.

In short, blacks were looking for true equality and to make their skin color a non-issue. Whereas, with SSM, gay advocates are unavoidably creating a new and unequal right and making their sexual orientation THE issue--hence the SS before the M in SSM.

For their to be an accurate comparison between discrimination against blacks in the workplace etc. and discrimination against homosexuals in marriage, then homosexuals would need to have been denied the civil right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They haven't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it is because of skin color or because of sexual orientation, it is still discrimination. Rationalize want. The examples you give was also given to "prove" that blacks were not being discriminated against. Blacks were allowed to ride buses the same as whites. They just had to sit at the back. Blacks were allowed to drink at drinking fountains, they just couldn't drink out of the white drinking fountains. Blacks were allowed to marry as long as they married blacks. Blacks could attend schools, they just couldn't attend the same schools as whites. Do you see a similarity between your argument and those that argued that blacks already had equality in America??

Gay couples can marry, they just can't marry who they want. What kind of convoluted rational is that?? Really, you have lost it if you think that is equality.

As far as the patently inane and offensive comparison between racial discrimination and sexual orientation,

Coretta Scott King was more offended by the same kind of discrimination imposed on people like you who the same kind of attitude towards gay couples. Evidently she did not find the comparison patently inane and offensive. Here are a few of the statements she made:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

-Coretta Scott King

“We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny…I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be,” she said, quoting her husband. “I’ve always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy.”

-Coretta Scott King

“Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement,” she said. “Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.”

-Coretta Scott King

For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law…I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.

-Coretta Scott King

[TAO]

California Boy, you mean gay individuals seek to recieve mairrage certificates, and they can't recieve the mairrage certificates they want.

[Nathair/|\]

Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it is because of skin color or because of sexual orientation, it is still discrimination. Rationalize want. The examples you give was also given to "prove" that blacks were not being discriminated against. Blacks were allowed to ride buses the same as whites. They just had to sit at the back. Blacks were allowed to drink at drinking fountains, they just couldn't drink out of the white drinking fountains. Blacks were allowed to marry as long as they married blacks. Blacks could attend schools, they just couldn't attend the same schools as whites. Do you see a similarity between your argument and those that argued that blacks already had equality in America??

Gay couples can marry, they just can't marry who they want. What kind of convoluted rational is that?? Really, you have lost it if you think that is equality.

As far as the patently inane and offensive comparison between racial discrimination and sexual orientation,

Coretta Scott King was more offended by the same kind of discrimination imposed on people like you who the same kind of attitude towards gay couples. Evidently she did not find the comparison patently inane and offensive. Here are a few of the statements she made:

California Boy, you mean gay individuals seek to recieve mairrage certificates, and they can't recieve the mairrage certificates they want.

I'm straight and I can't marry who I want: Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

[Robert F. Smith]

interesting, so God can tell someone to do something even with him knowing it won't work out. What about members who were shaken are left the Church because of this business? are they negligible?

Actually, Prop 8 did work out, despite starting out with only minority support. With a coalition of Roman Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, and African American churches pushing for it, opinions were turned around, and a majority of Californians voted for the proposition. It's called "democracy in action." Some people were angry, but what else is new? Should we prefer totalitarian dictatorship?

And, by the way, no tithing money was spent on the campaign. Mormons raised the funds for the project locally (in California), and campaigned from their homes and not from LDS chapels. I know. I was there and saw it first hand.

Anyone leaving the Church over this issue, would also be among those leaving the Church in Joseph's day, and there were plenty. We have challenges like this set before us from time to time. Those who are shaken so much that they can't handle it, will leave. Should be no surprise.

The real issue here is not gay marriage, but traditional marriage. Ironically, Mormons were once among the strongest challengers to traditional marriage. Our belief in and practice of polygyny was challenged in the Congress and in the courts and we lost, almost leading to the disestablishment of our Church. Those who take the long view and have an historical sense of perspective realize that the trend is toward any kind of marriage or no marriage at all, which means that Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons will soon be legally able to practice polygyny in this country. A sea change is coming.

[Ahab]

There are no "same circumstances". To be the same circumstance they would have to be the same person... as it is not possible for two people to be one person your whole argument falls to bits.

The answer doesn't vary from person to person. That's the whole point.

At this moment, if you were to ask God: Is homosexuality a sin? God would answer you with the same answer he would give to me and every other person who asked him at this moment. That would be his answer at this moment, if we received an answer from him. It doesn't matter if you are male or if you are female, or if you are brown or if you are white, or any other variables like that. The question I would be asking, that you should be asking, is if God considers homosexuality to be a sin, in itself. He either does or he doesn't. There is no middle ground.

But, is it possible that if we were to ask him that question LATER that he would maybe change his mind? Maybe, I suppose. I can admit that is at least possible. But I just checked with him again and he just gave me the same answer he gave to me earlier, so that's the answer you should also get from him right now. If you want to see if maybe he will change his mind later, like maybe tomorrow, go ahead and ask him then and he will give you his answer then. I'll check back with him too to see if he gives the same answer he's already given.

[california boy]

Did you read the quotation that was stated earlier in the thread? An apostle said that God told them to act now. Isn't that revelation?

The one thing I know from posting on this board is that a statement by one or even several apostles on what is doctrine does not make it doctrine. You should know that as well. Until the prophet and 12 apostles affirm something is a revelation from God, it is not. It may very well be something that the first presidency and quorum of the 12 agree upon, (which seems to be the case here), but it is not scripture and no such statement claiming the family proclamation has ever been made. To imply otherwise is just your personal opinion. It may even be the personal opinion of Boyd. K Packard. But it is not the opinion of the church. And it is not scripture.

The truth is, at this point from the beginning of man until present day, God has not made HIs will known on SSM. He may in the future, but at present, the heavens are silent on this subject. Until He does, the current practice of the church to not allow SSM is a policy decision. A policy that may never change. A policy that I fully support the church in having.

[california boy]

California Boy, you mean gay individuals seek to recieve mairrage certificates, and they can't recieve the mairrage certificates they want.

I think you know exactly what I mean.

[Ahab]

Then what is the purpose of "personal revelation" at all? If one cannot rely on "personal revelation", as is evidenced when you state that "one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has", then what purpose does personal revelation serve, if it cannot be relied upon (in your example, the person truly believes that they have received personal revealtion, when in fact they haven't).

The value in personal revelation is that each person can receive revelation from God without being dependent upon receiving God's mind and will through another person who is not God. You can get revelation from God just as well as I can, but if you don't I'm not dependent on you to get it for me and you're not dependent on me either. Each person can get revelation from God, and that's what makes it personal revelation. That doesn't mean God's answer is going to change from person to person. It just means each person can get it, personally, from God.

Why would apostles ask members to seek personal revelation if that revelation may conflict with the views and statements and even beliefs of the apostles themselves, who receive revelation for the entire church?

Because the apostles don't want others just taking them at their word when they say something is revelation from God. We can each find out for ourselves whether or not it is revelation from God, regardless of what anyone else says. Once we do we'll then see if others have received the same answer we received from God, and then we'll know that what they got was also revelation from God because they got the same answer we did. God's answers are not contradictory, so anyone who gets an answer from him will be in agreement about what he has said.

What then is the purpose if one must already know that their personal revelation must align with the revelation received by the apostles, or it is false revelation?

God's revelations to us will align with what the apostles tell us only if what the apostles tell us are what God told them. If they don't, then somebody is wrong, because God doesn't give conflicting answers. We may be wrong, or they may be wrong, but either way, somebody is wrong. At that point we then decide if we're going to go our own way while thinking our answer is right and theirs is wrong, or we could think that maybe we're wrong and we need to check with God again. Maye we just misunderstood what he meant, or maybe they did, but we shouldn't be thinking we're both right if our answers conflict. The safe thing to do is keep checking with God to make sure we understand what he told us when he told us something. At some point then we'll have clarity and understanding if we keep asking God to help us understand what he told us, personally.

Why not just do/believe/act, etc exactly as the apostles command, and just skip the seeking of personal revelation, since that revelation must align with their revelation in order to be considered genuine?

If you did that you'd be relying on them as your role models instead of relying on God, which is okay if they're doing and acting and saying the things that God would if he were in their place, but you won't know they're that good until you know that what they're doing and saying is what God would do or tell you himself.

[Walden]

Ahab, genuine question here....

How can you state in one post that "We can each find out for ourselves whether or not it is revelation from God, regardless of what anyone else says," while stating in a previous post that ""one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has."

If we can "each find out for ourselves whether or not it is revelation from God, regardless of what anyone else says," then how does one discern whether or not that revelation is genuine, since someone may, according to you, have not received revelation, but "believe(s) he actually has."

I just find it odd that one's personal revelation must coincide with the personal revelations of others in order to be genuine ("we'll then see if others have received the same answer we received from God, and then we'll know that what they got was also revelation from God because they got the same answer we did.").....then again, what is the point of personal revelation? Why not just skip the part where you need to seek personal revelation, just wait for the consensus opinion of those who believe as you do, and then just go with that?

[Bikeemikey]

The answer doesn't vary from person to person. That's the whole point.

At this moment, if you were to ask God: Is homosexuality a sin? God would answer you with the same answer he would give to me and every other person who asked him at this moment. That would be his answer at this moment, if we received an answer from him. It doesn't matter if you are male or if you are female, or if you are brown or if you are white, or any other variables like that. The question I would be asking, that you should be asking, is if God considers homosexuality to be a sin, in itself. He either does or he doesn't. There is no middle ground.

But, is it possible that if we were to ask him that question LATER that he would maybe change his mind? Maybe, I suppose. I can admit that is at least possible. But I just checked with him again and he just gave me the same answer he gave to me earlier, so that's the answer you should also get from him right now. If you want to see if maybe he will change his mind later, like maybe tomorrow, go ahead and ask him then and he will give you his answer then. I'll check back with him too to see if he gives the same answer he's already given.

Ahab,

You and I just believe in a fundamentally different understanding of the universe and of God.

Sin is that which separates us from God. No unclean thing can dwell with God. God is perfect and to enter his presence we must be perfect as he is perfect. No one reaches this threshold. All human action is imperfect, all human action separates us from God, all human action is sin.

That is the whole purpose of the atonement, to bridge the gap.

If I were to pray and ask God is homosexuality a sin I am sure he would say yes. If I were to pray and ask God if the way I try to be nice to everyone i meet is a sin he would also say yes. Everything we do is sin.

However, if I were to pray and ask god should i be in this homosexual relationship with this man, he may very well say yes. That is because he sees outcomes and connections and opportunities that we do not see. He may realize that a specific crafting event is needed in that context.

Likewise if I were to pray and ask god should i try to be nice to everyone i meet all the time he may say no, you need to try and put yourself first once in a while.

Gods ways are not your ways, neither are they mine.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it is because of skin color or because of sexual orientation, it is still discrimination. Rationalize want.

Not letting underage children marry, is discrimination. Not letting people practice law who haven't passed the bar, is discrimination. Not letting people drive drunk, is discrimination. Not letting under-aged children drive, is discrimination. Not letting people drive above the speed limit, is discrimination. Not letting felons and underage children vote, is discrimination. However, these and other similar examples are quite different from not letting someone vote because of the color of their skin. Really, this is so obvious that it should go without saying.

The examples you give was also given to "prove" that blacks were not being discriminated against. Blacks were allowed to ride buses the same as whites. They just had to sit at the back.

Wrong. Blacks were denied the same right as whites to sit in the front of the bus.

Blacks were allowed to drink at drinking fountains, they just couldn't drink out of the white drinking fountains.

In other words, blacks were denied the civil right to drink out of the same fountains as whites.

Blacks were allowed to marry as long as they married blacks.

And, whites were allowed to marry as long as they married whites or didn't marry blacks. Both whites and blacks were denied the civil right to marry each other.

Blacks could attend schools, they just couldn't attend the same schools as whites.

In other words, blacks were denied the civil right to attend the same school as whites.

Do you see a similarity between your argument and those that argued that blacks already had equality in America??

No. Quite the opposite. Blacks were unequal precisely because they were not treated the same as white. Gays have long been treated the same as heterosexuals. Both have an equal right to marry any adult of the opposite sex of their choosing. But, unlike earlier with interracial marriages, gays already have the right to traditional marriage, or in other words they have always had the basic civil right that is fundamental to our very existence and survival. In fact, you as a gay man exercised that right. But, that isn't what you all want. You want a newly invented right. You want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Gay couples can marry, they just can't marry who they want.

The basic civil right of marriage isn't the right to marry whomever or whatever or however one wants. This is what you and other gay marriage advocates have yet to get. Rather, it is the right for men and women to marry each other. Whereas, as previously explained, the right to marry someone of the same sex is a newly invented and different and unequal right. It is a new and mangled definition of marriage.

And, even with this additional right it doesn't yet allow people to marry whomever or what or when they want. Both the basic civil right and the invented right of SSM discriminates against and doesn't allow under-aged children the right to marry whomever or whatever, nor does it allow humans to marry animals, plants, or inanimate objects, nor does it allow platonic roommates or employee/employer relationships or two corporations to consider themselves as legally married.

What kind of convoluted rational is that??

If you are being self-referential, then I couldn't agree more.

Really, you have lost it if you think that is equality.

Equality to me means having the same basic civil right, or in other words, having the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Equality to you means having a different right (the right to marry someone of the same sex) and a different type and definition of marriage. Convoluted indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 9, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

Not letting underage children marry, is discrimination. Not letting people practice law who haven't passed the bar, is discrimination. Not letting people drive drunk, is discrimination. Not letting under-aged children drive, is discrimination. Not letting people drive above the speed limit, is discrimination. Not letting felons and underage children vote, is discrimination. However, these and other similar examples are quite different from not letting someone vote because of the color of their skin. Really, this is so obvious that it should go without saying.

Wrong. Blacks were denied the same right as whites to sit in the front of the bus.

In other words, blacks were denied the civil right to drink out of the same fountains as whites.

And, whites were allowed to marry as long as they married whites or didn't marry blacks. Both whites and blacks were denied the civil right to marry each other.

In other words, blacks were denied the civil right to attend the same school as whites.

No. Quite the opposite. Blacks were unequal precisely because they were not treated the same as white. Gays have long been treated the same as heterosexuals. Both have an equal right to marry any adult of the opposite sex of their choosing. But, unlike earlier with interracial marriages, gays already have the right to traditional marriage, or in other words they have always had the basic civil right that is fundamental to our very existence and survival. In fact, you as a gay man exercised that right. But, that isn't what you all want. You want a newly invented right. You want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The basic civil right of marriage isn't the right to marry whomever or whatever or however one wants. This is what you and other gay marriage advocates have yet to get. Rather, it is the right for men and women to marry each other. Whereas, as previously explained, the right to marry someone of the same sex is a newly invented and different and unequal right. It is a new and mangled definition of marriage.

And, even with this additional right it doesn't yet allow people to marry whomever or what or when they want. Both the basic civil right and the invented right of SSM discriminates against and doesn't allow under-aged children the right to marry whomever or whatever, nor does it allow humans to marry animals, plants, or inanimate objects, nor does it allow platonic roommates or employee/employer relationships or two corporations to consider themselves as legally married.

If you are being self-referential, then I couldn't agree more.

Equality to me means having the same basic civil right, or in other words, having the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Equality to you means having a different right (the right to marry someone of the same sex) and a different type and definition of marriage. Convoluted indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ok wade, I will just let you live in your fantasy world. The real world has heard this ridiculous argument before and evidently has rejected it as having absolutely no validity. Hence, more and more people ever day are convinced that gays should have the right to marry the person (who is of the same sex and not an underaged child) that they want.

The next big decision will be handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court where this argument will not even be presented because it is simply irrational. Using this kind of argument in front of the U. S. Supreme Court would insure Prop 8 is overturned by the end of next year. And that, my friend, is the real world.

[Kemara]

You may want to reread my post.

Ok.

It is interesting to me that Christ himself walked upon this very earth and taught what He felt was important for us to understand….He said nothing on the subject.

Christ did not speak about a lot of abominable things. His not explicitly talking about them as a justification for doing those abominable things is nothing but an argument from silence.

In absence of any revelation on this subject, can you really make the case that God does not want homosexuals to marry?

I can make the case of what Christ explicitly did say about Marriage and He said it was between man and woman, he made room for no exceptions, anything more than this is putting words in Christs mouth. Apart from that I can make the exact same case you can make, which is an argument from silence. The question is which argument makes the most sense. So let me ask you, do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

What I said is that the scriptures are not clear on gay marriage as you claimed they are.

What I actually claimed was that Christ has made it clear what does constitute a Marriage, neither homosexual “marriage” or any other type or form of “marriage” is justified by Christ’s words. So you are back to the argument from silence, again do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

You have not provided anything that does show the scriptures are against gay marriage. And that was the point of my post.

The point of your post was that because Christ didn’t explicitly state that homosexual “marriage” is an abomination that this justifies the act. The reasoning you use is based on silence so again do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

How important was it to Christ to condemn homosexuals? Zip. Nada. Nothing. Did Christ forbid gay couples from marrying? Nope.

Please please please don’t make me point out all the other abominations and perversions that Christ did not explicitly condemn. As it stands this argument from silence requires you, if you want to be consistent with you reasoning and logic, to accept every other form of abomination and perversion that can be imagined. So let me ask you, do you support all forms of abomination and perversion that can be imagined on the same terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

You are trying to prove something using the scriptures that are just not found in the scriptures. I repeat. There is no mention of ssm in the scriptures.

I repeat there is no mention of lots of abominations and perversions. Do you support all forms of abomination and perversion that can be imagined on the same terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with? Your entire position rests on a slope that is rather slippery.

There has been NO revelation or word from God on SSM. Period. I hope I am clear enough this time around.

There has been NO revelation or word from God on lots of abominations and perversions. In your mind does this justify these abominations and perversions? Shall we make a list?

What the revelations DO make clear is that Christ defines Marriage as between a man and a woman. Please show me where Christ makes any allowance for any other form or type of "marriage" other than between man and woman.

If you think that God has condemned ssm in the scriptures, then simply show me where.

I have done exactly what you have done, provided an argument from silence, so the question is whose argument makes more sense. So let me ask you, do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

Don't bring up irrelevant arguments. They don't support your position.

My argument doesn’t support my position? You might want to rethink that, perhaps it is not a good argument, perhaps it is not a relevant argument, perhaps it is not a logical argument but it most certainly does support my position as laid out in this post.

And either do the scriptures.

The scripture do not support your position. The scripture do not support anything other than a marriage between a man and woman.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Kemara

[RobertAC]

Seems to me that there are things that are pretty certain to happen, and things that are not so certain.

Things that seem pretty certain: More legal wrangling concerning same sex marraige which, more likely than not, will finally result in all states allowing gay couples to marry. Churches will not be required to recognize SSM, but more likely than not, some denominations will allow for some blessings and some marriages to take place.

Things that are as clear as mud: Whether Catholic and Mormon churches will perform gay weddings. I don't see that happening any time in my lifetime, but both churches do reconsider their positions on issues, so who knows what will happen in 50-100 years. Or in a million plus 1 years as Cinepro's post suggests.

[TAO]

Robert, I'd agree with Cinepro... it won't ever happen... mainly because of the symbology behind mairrage, which is extremely strong. So nah, I'd say it's much more clear than mud, really.

Edited November 10, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

I think you know exactly what I mean.

Nontheless; my point still stands. This is a fight over how pieces of paper should be distributed. What is more critical is the resulting laws and other effects. People who pretend it's just about 'rights' are just as correct as people who pretend it's about 'protecting mairrage'. They are just two different opinions which both care about the resulting effects, when it gets down to it, really.

[Lightbearer]

This month marks the four-year anniversary of California's Prop 8, the infamous law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Its passage, with strong support from LDS Church members, led to protests in front of the LA Temple, and a backlash against many LDS who had supported it.

Now, here we are four years later. Four states voted on SSM yesterday, Main, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Three of those states voted to allow same sex marriages, the jury is still out in Washington.

For anyone interested in how the gay community was able to bring about this change in attitudes, this article is interesting:

How Gay Marriage Finally Won at the Polls

So my question is this: are yesterday's results a temporary set back in the fight to defend traditional marriage, or has the dam broken leading to national (and eventually worldwide) acceptance of such unions?

And if Prop 8 was only putting off the inevitable, was it really a wise use of the Church members' time, money and PR? In other words, if we had known that we were only buying a few years of time against acceptance for SSM, would we have done anything different in 2008?

It is never unwise to oppose iniquity and true Saints will continue to oppose it even if the whole world wallows in filth. The true Church will always be in eternal opposition to sin and wickedness unless another great apostasy were to occur, which is not going to happen. If it so be that the country chooses iniquity then it is ripe for destruction, that does not mean I should not oppose it and fight it to my dying breath.

"Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever." (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 1:7)

The election only means one thing to me, that we are that much closer to the Lord's Second Coming when the wicked will be burned as stubble. We do not have to accept what the world says is "right" because it is not and there is no way it will be, those who think so are deluding themselves.

[Calm]

I don't see that happening any time in my lifetime, but both churches do reconsider their positions on issues, so who knows what will happen in 50-100 years. Or in a million plus 1 years as Cinepro's post suggests.

I don't know about the Catholic Church but the two examples pointed to for LDS have at least one very significant condition that does not apply to SSM, and that is the current position was the original state, iow the Church moved to a position that was seen as acceptable in the past. Both plural marriage and the ban were introduced to the Church (in at least one case by revelation, source of the other is unknown) after practicing monogamy and ordination of blacks. Not only that but monogamy was still the default marriage position, plural relationships were never in the majority and while acceptance of the Principle might be required for exaltation, actually being married in a plural relationship was not. And even with the Ban in place, Elijah Abel's descendants were still being ordained.

Otoh, there was never any past practice of nor exceptions to the rule of no gay marriage in the LDS faith, nor anything remotely approaching it.

[RobertAC]

I don't know about the Catholic Church but the two examples pointed to for LDS have at least one very significant condition that does not apply to SSM, and that is the current position was the original state, iow the Church moved to a position that was seen as acceptable in the past. Both plural marriage and the ban were introduced to the Church (in at least one case by revelation, source of the other is unknown) after practicing monogamy and ordination of blacks. Not only that but monogamy was still the default marriage position, plural relationships were never in the majority and while acceptance of the Principle might be required for exaltation, actually being married in a plural relationship was not. And even with the Ban in place, Elijah Abel's descendants were still being ordained.

Otoh, there was never any past practice of nor exceptions to the rule of no gay marriage in the LDS faith, nor anything remotely approaching it.

Good point. There would be no prior history to look back to support a change in belief.

[california boy]

Ok.

Christ did not speak about a lot of abominable things. His not explicitly talking about them as a justification for doing those abominable things is nothing but an argument from silence.

I can make the case of what Christ explicitly did say about Marriage and He said it was between man and woman, he made room for no exceptions, anything more than this is putting words in Christs mouth. Apart from that I can make the exact same case you can make, which is an argument from silence. The question is which argument makes the most sense. So let me ask you, do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

What I actually claimed was that Christ has made it clear what does constitute a Marriage, neither homosexual “marriage” or any other type or form of “marriage” is justified by Christ’s words. So you are back to the argument from silence, again do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

The point of your post was that because Christ didn’t explicitly state that homosexual “marriage” is an abomination that this justifies the act. The reasoning you use is based on silence so again do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

Please please please don’t make me point out all the other abominations and perversions that Christ did not explicitly condemn. As it stands this argument from silence requires you, if you want to be consistent with you reasoning and logic, to accept every other form of abomination and perversion that can be imagined. So let me ask you, do you support all forms of abomination and perversion that can be imagined on the same terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

I repeat there is no mention of lots of abominations and perversions. Do you support all forms of abomination and perversion that can be imagined on the same terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with? Your entire position rests on a slope that is rather slippery.

There has been NO revelation or word from God on lots of abominations and perversions. In your mind does this justify these abominations and perversions? Shall we make a list?

What the revelations DO make clear is that Christ defines Marriage as between a man and a woman. Please show me where Christ makes any allowance for any other form or type of "marriage" other than between man and woman.

I have done exactly what you have done, provided an argument from silence, so the question is whose argument makes more sense. So let me ask you, do you support all forms of “marriage” on the terms that you wish to justify homosexual “marriage” with?

My argument doesn’t support my position? You might want to rethink that, perhaps it is not a good argument, perhaps it is not a relevant argument, perhaps it is not a logical argument but it most certainly does support my position as laid out in this post.

The scripture do not support your position. The scripture do not support anything other than a marriage between a man and woman.

A very good argument that Christ did not say he approved of gay marriage. Except that is NOT what I said. What I actually said was that Christ is not said ANYTHING about gay marriage nor has there been any revelation on this matter. In other words, WE DON'T KNOW how God feels about gay marriage. And that is still the fact. So unfortunately your post is entirely irrelevant to what I said. Now if you do know how God feels about gay marriage, then please point to a scripture or a revelation where he actually said one way or the other how He feels. Until then, you and I are both just guessing how He feel. I hope that is a bit more clear to you.

[california boy]

I don't know about the Catholic Church but the two examples pointed to for LDS have at least one very significant condition that does not apply to SSM, and that is the current position was the original state, iow the Church moved to a position that was seen as acceptable in the past. Both plural marriage and the ban were introduced to the Church (in at least one case by revelation, source of the other is unknown) after practicing monogamy and ordination of blacks. Not only that but monogamy was still the default marriage position, plural relationships were never in the majority and while acceptance of the Principle might be required for exaltation, actually being married in a plural relationship was not. And even with the Ban in place, Elijah Abel's descendants were still being ordained.

Otoh, there was never any past practice of nor exceptions to the rule of no gay marriage in the LDS faith, nor anything remotely approaching it.

The policy of blacks not holding the priesthoon and the policy of ssm not being allowed in the church share the exact same origin. Both policies came about by man and not by any revelation from God. You can not point to a revelation about blacks holding the priesthood and you can not point to a revelation about gays not being allowed to marry. So both are policies not doctrine, at least from God.

[Calm]

However, prior to and during the ban there were those of African lineage who were ordained, ordination that was considered authorised.

There has never been even one case of an authorised gay marriage performed in the LDS faith.

Thus while there was a history or foundation on which to build priesthood for those of a black African lineage as well as always an anticipation that eventually a change would come, though it might be in the next life, there is not only no history of prior acts to point to but no announced or taught anticipation of change toward SSM.

I consider that a significant difference.

As to there being no known origin for revelation on the subject, there are an infinite amount of subjects that we currently have no revelation on so pointing to the ban and going "look no revelation so that means it is someday possible that there will be revelation that will change current policy" is about as meaningful as pointing toward the lack of revelation on the proper way to mow a lawn and claiming "hey, maybe some day the Church will receive and start teaching a revelation on how to mow a lawn so we can have a policy about mowing lawns!" Not having a revelation on a topic demonstrates nothing besides the fact that there is no revelation on a subject.

I also would say it is highly debatable there is no revelation relevant to the policy, even if one were to accept the claim there is no revelation directly specifying "no gay marriage". That is like saying IMO because there is no revelation that uses the specific term of marijuana, that there there is no revelation on which the policy is based when on can point to the WoW and demonstrate a connection, one being the similarity between both tobacco and alcohol use and marijuana.

Edited November 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[slamarwi]

From reading this and other Mormon dialogue discussions, it is becoming evident that our religion is no longer needed or wanted.

Religion is voluntary. It is based upon revelations, rules, guidelines etc. to help us follow God's plan, get along with one another, create civility and a common bond among us. If we don't like or agree with the precepts of a particular religion, we should not be part of it.

It seems like when the naysayers of the LDS church don't agree with the leadership they get belligerent and want all the rules changed to meet their desires. I'm really tired of the SSM baloney. You all know it's not right, quit trying to convince yourself and others. Why do you think there is so much anger, contention and confusion within the minds of those that participate in it. I'm tired of being PC. Why not just create The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Gay Saints or some other version that meets the perversion of the day.

Will SSM eventually happen throughout the US - Obviously, just like it always does before a nation is destroyed.

The definition of condone is "The lack of objection." I would like to publicly voice my opposition to this practice.

I also oppose recreational drug use, abortion and same sex marriage just like I object to adultery, murder, stealing, deceit and anything that is wrong. Evil will continue to grow and I pray that honesty, respect and good will ultimately triumph.

Thank you Wade for being a ray of light and truth in these discussions.

[Kemara]

A very good argument that Christ did not say he approved of gay marriage.

Thank you. What you consider to be a very good arguement combined with your own admission on this thread that...

What is in the scriptures is that homosexuality is wrong.

would cause an open minded, critically thinking person some pause in regards to the acceptance of homosexual "marriage".

Except that is NOT what I said. What I actually said was that Christ is not said ANYTHING about gay marriage nor has there been any revelation on this matter. In other words, WE DON'T KNOW how God feels about gay marriage. And that is still the fact.

Actually we dont need to guess how Christ felt about Marriage. He made it clear that Marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is a fact. There is no such thing as homosexual "marriage". It is an oxymoron, it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage, according to the revealed word of Christ, is between a man and a woman. There is no other form of marriage.

We dont know explicitly from the scriptures how Christ feels about carrots, or how He feels about bird watching, or how He feels about scratching an itch, we dont know how Christ feels about an awful lot of things. Carrots, bird watching and scratching an itch have about as much to do with Marriage as does being homosexual.

So unfortunately your post is entirely irrelevant to what I said. Now if you do know how God feels about gay marriage, then please point to a scripture or a revelation where he actually said one way or the other how He feels.

Come come now, no need to be coy all of a sudden. You are seeking to justify homosexual "marriage", this is your purpose. It is not to show that Christ didnt explicity codemn homosexual "marriage", that is simply the means to an end. The end is justification so my post is entrirely relevant to your overall position.

Until then, you and I are both just guessing how He feel. I hope that is a bit more clear to you.

Good on you for admitting that you are guessing. It takes serious brass to admit that your position, which is diametrically opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is based on complete conjecture. I am glad that my position on Marriage requires no brass at all and is rock solid since it is based on the revealed word of Christ. I hope that much is clear to you.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Kemara

[california boy]

Once again, I think you misread my intent. You seem to be assuming that I wish or hope or think that ssm will somehow magically change within the Mormon church. I do not. I have no desire to convince you or anyone else that ssm should happen in the church. I frankly don't care one way or the other. I am perfectly fine with the church having a policy against ssm as I have said numerous times before. I am simply pointing out that there has been no revelation on this issue. I expect this policy to continue. I see no change in that policy. To accuse me of trying to change that policy or even make some kind of argument to support a change is incorrect. I am not trying to justify ssm. I am not trying to justify homosexuality. The ONLY thing I am saying is that there has been no revelation on this subject.

I hope I have repeated myself enough times so that you can finally understand what I have been saying all along. Does that help?