Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Kemara]

You seem to be assuming that I wish or hope or think that ssm will somehow magically change within the Mormon church....To accuse me of trying to change that policy or even make some kind of argument to support a change is incorrect.

Excuse me? I did what? I thought we were talking about the words of Christ as found in scripture, I had no idea we were talking about the Church. Had I known that I would have dusted off a few Prophets and Apostles.

Does that help?

Its all a means to an end Californiaboy, a means to an end. You know it and I know it. This is a thread entitled "Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?" is it not?

Edited November 10, 2012 by Kemara

[california boy]

Excuse me? I did what? I thought we were talking about the words of Christ as found in scripture, I had no idea we were talking about the Church. Had I known that I would have dusted off a few Prophets and Apostles.

Its all a means to an end Californiaboy, a means to an end. You know it and I know it. This is a thread entitled "Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?" is it not?

We have been talking about the words of Christ as well as all of the prophets. Christ did not make a statement about ssm while he was on the earth. No prophet in the history of mankind has ever said they received a REVELATION from God on SSM. That is all I have pointed out. I am fully aware that modern prophets have spoken against ssm, and it is currently church policy.

While the thread is "Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?" I am not sure if this refers to acceptance in the United States, which I do think is inevitable or if it is about acceptance in the church, which I am highly doubtful will ever happen. I don't really care about one way or the other what the church police is on gay marriage. I am no longer a member for the very reason that policy exists.

You will not find a single post of mine pushing for acceptance of homosexuality or gay marriage in the church. Nor will you find a single post by me taking any position against church doctrine. I have never taken that position. Most of my family including my children are members of the church. I have done nothing but be supportive in their membership and belief in the church. I think it is a wonderful way to live for many people. My family is better for their religious beliefs in the church.

You can find many posts by me objecting to the church trying to push its policies onto non church members. I disagree with trying to legislate a churches belief system on the general public no matter how good the church thinks their teachings and practices are. Do they have the constitutional right to do so? I beleive they do. That does not mean it is a wise policy for the church to follow. Given the direction the church has taken since Prop 8, I think that the church leaders would agree with me. Maybe not. It doesn't really matter to me.

You can find many post disputing some of the arguments that some members use to justify the churches position on ssm. It is as if some members need to justify the churches position on ssm. In doing so, they often resort to concepts or ideas that simply make no sense at all. For example the stance that gays are not discriminated against, they can marry any straight person they want. What kind of twisted logic is that? Personally I think that no justification is necessary. The church leaders have simply decided that the church does not support ssm. Members that value the church leadership agree to follow that position.

[wenglund]

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.

Actually, I derived the argument from the Supreme Court. Look up the ruling in Loving v. Virginia where it talks about the "basic civil right" of marriage, and you should discover that it can't possibly apply to homosexual relationships. Think about it, f SSM were the same right as traditional marriage, there would have been no need to redefine the legal definition of marriage. To those of us for whom up is still up and not down, and good is not bad and bad is not good, and whose hearts aren't selfishly set on the things of this world, and whose heads are not buried deep in the sand of denial through severe confirmation bias, this is the real world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 10, 2012 by wenglund

[RobertAC]

Actually, I derived the argument from the Supreme Court. Look up the ruling in Loving v. Virginia where it talks about the "basic civil right" of marriage, and you should discover that it can't possibly apply to homosexual relationships. Think about it, f SSM were the same right as traditional marriage, there would have been no need to redefine the legal definition of marriage. To those of us for whom up is still up and not down, and good is not bad and bad is not good, and whose hearts aren't selfishly set on the things of this world, and whose heads are not buried deep in the sand of denial through severe confirmation bias, this is the real world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see the dicta in Loving that you are referring to, Wade, but while the issue surrounding interracial marriage is not the same as SSM, there is also some dicta in that case which could support a case for a SSM. An important feature of Loving is that the US Supreme Court found a right that was not specifically defined in the Constitution. It was a results-based decision. In short, there is precedent for the court to find a right simply because denying the institution to certain people seems wrong.

[RobertAC]

Actually, I derived the argument from the Supreme Court. Look up the ruling in Loving v. Virginia where it talks about the "basic civil right" of marriage, and you should discover that it can't possibly apply to homosexual relationships. Think about it, f SSM were the same right as traditional marriage, there would have been no need to redefine the legal definition of marriage. To those of us for whom up is still up and not down, and good is not bad and bad is not good, and whose hearts aren't selfishly set on the things of this world, and whose heads are not buried deep in the sand of denial through severe confirmation bias, this is the real world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see the dicta in Loving that you are referring to, Wade, but while the issue surrounding interracial marriage is not the same as SSM, there is also some dicta in that case which could support a case for a SSM. An important feature of Loving is that the US Supreme Court found a right that was not specifically defined in the Constitution. It was a results-based decision. In short, there is precedent for the court to find a right simply because denying the institution to certain people seems wrong.

[TAO]

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.

His post isn't irrelevant, really... his point was this; there are plenty of other things which we consider immoral which God said nothing about directly. But that doesn't make them any less immoral.

They have pointed to what they consider a revelation (Proclimation to the Family) plenty of times. However, you just don't believe it is one. Thus, there is a conflict.

Edited November 10, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

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.

Actually there is a point there (although I'm not quite sure if the priesthood ban was from man or from God). Brigham Young said that the priesthood ban would be removed, did he not, in later ages. No such thing was said of homosexual mairrage.

Edited November 10, 2012 by TAO

[wenglund]

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

My pleasure. I doubt that my efforts will stem the tide of pop culture, but it has been worth the try.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 10, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I see the dicta in Loving that you are referring to, Wade, but while the issue surrounding interracial marriage is not the same as SSM, there is also some dicta in that case which could support a case for a SSM. An important feature of Loving is that the US Supreme Court found a right that was not specifically defined in the Constitution. It was a results-based decision. In short, there is precedent for the court to find a right simply because denying the institution to certain people seems wrong.

In those states where SSM has been legalized, it is now a right (one conferred by the legalization), though not the basic civil right that is fundamental to our existence and survival. It is a newly defined right that reflects the mangled definition of marriage. It isn't a right in those states where it hasn't been legalized.

Perhaps you can point me to where in the ruling I may find the a prior right you alleged, or better yet, could you quote the relevant section here. To me, such an a priori right would defy the rationale for the basic civil right being conferred to begin with. To me, it doesn't make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 10, 2012 by wenglund

[TAO]

Wade, the statement they use to try to justify the implicit a prior right is the 'all rights not granted to the government are granted to the people' or something like that in the Constitution. At the same time, however, one could justify a whole ton of things based on that.

Edited November 10, 2012 by TAO

[Kemara]

We have been talking about the words of Christ as well as all of the prophets.

You and others might have been but I have restricted myself to the words of Christ exclusively.

Christ did not make a statement about ssm while he was on the earth.

No he did not, but as pointed out He did specifically talk about Marriage and made it clear that Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as homosexual “marriage”, they are a contradiction in terms.

No prophet in the history of mankind has ever said they received a REVELATION from God on SSM. That is all I have pointed out.

That is all you have pointed out is it? To what end Californiaboy?

Why would a Prophet receive a revelation on an oxymoron? There has been no revelation about how the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. There has been no revelation on all natural artificial flavors. There has been no revelation on authentic reproduction. There has been no revelation on how one can be a little bit pregnant, or a controlled market economy or an extinct life form. There has been no revelation about homosexual “marriage” or a man “marrying” a refrigerator for that matter. So what?

You can find many post disputing some of the arguments that some members use to justify the churches position on ssm. It is as if some members need to justify the churches position on ssm.

And some members don’t need to justify the position held by the church because they have the words of Christ which clearly state that Marriage is between a man and a woman.

In doing so, they often resort to concepts or ideas that simply make no sense at all. For example the stance that gays are not discriminated against, they can marry any straight person they want. What kind of twisted logic is that?

Homosexual “marriage” supporters are not seeking equal rights, they do not want the same rights as I do, they already have the same right as I do. What they want are extra rights, rights that I do not have. And I am the one with twisted logic?

Personally I think that no justification is necessary.

Neither do I, because Jesus Christ has been quite clear that Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Members that value the church leadership agree to follow that position.

Or they value what Jesus Christ has said about Marriage being between a man and a woman.

[wenglund]

Wade, the statement they use to try to justify the implicit a prior right is the 'all rights not granted to the government are granted to the people' or something like that in the Constitution. At the same time, however, one could justify a whole ton of things based on that.

I am not sure how that would apply in the case of marriage since with legalized marriage we are talking about a governmental seal of approval and a right conferred by the government.

My guess is that has to do with the word "civil"--i.e. when associated with a right it is interpreted as applying to all citizens. However, even here it doesn't make sense since the basic civil right of marriage applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

maybe there is something else that Robert has in mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

His post isn't irrelevant, really... his point was this; there are plenty of other things which we consider immoral which God said nothing about directly. But that doesn't make them any less immoral.

They have pointed to what they consider a revelation (Proclimation to the Family) plenty of times. However, you just don't believe it is one. Thus, there is a conflict.

I am not talking about what the church thinks is moral or immoral. I am only talking about what God thinks is moral or immoral. We certainly know that Got thinks that marriage is moral. We DON'T know whether God thinks that ssm is moral. He has not said anything about that subject by His words while he was on this earth or by revelation to His prophets. So at this time the policy on ssm is just that, policy.

I understand that some believe the proclamation on the family is scripture. The church however has not recognized it as such. That is ALL I am saying. Currently the proclamation is a statement of belief. And currently the policy of ssm is a statement of belief.Both will remain such until such time as the prophet receives a revelation about them, This is the same as blacks holding the priesthood. That policy was a statement of belief until God corrected that policy in 1978. Who knows, God may never reveal anything about ssm. If that is the case, then this policy will stay in force for eternity. I am not expecting or hoping for a revelation on this matter from God. I am only identifying the current state of that policy.

[california boy]

Actually there is a point there (although I'm not quite sure if the priesthood ban was from man or from God). Brigham Young said that the priesthood ban would be removed, did he not, in later ages. No such thing was said of homosexual mairrage.

I agree completely. Now we are dealing in facts and not speculation. Thanks.

[Storm Rider]

I am not talking about what the church thinks is moral or immoral. I am only talking about what God thinks is moral or immoral. We certainly know that Got thinks that marriage is moral. We DON'T know whether God thinks that ssm is moral. He has not said anything about that subject by His words while he was on this earth or by revelation to His prophets. So at this time the policy on ssm is just that, policy.

I understand that some believe the proclamation on the family is scripture. The church however has not recognized it as such. That is ALL I am saying. Currently the proclamation is a statement of belief. And currently the policy of ssm is a statement of belief.Both will remain such until such time as the prophet receives a revelation about them, This is the same as blacks holding the priesthood. That policy was a statement of belief until God corrected that policy in 1978. Who knows, God may never reveal anything about ssm. If that is the case, then this policy will stay in force for eternity. I am not expecting or hoping for a revelation on this matter from God. I am only identifying the current state of that policy.

Are you really saying that scripture has never said anything about homosexual behavior? Further, are you saying that you need to be told everything that is good and everything that is bad in life? What you are looking for is the Law of Moses and being as stiffnecked as the children of Israel; wholly incapable of following the Spirit. The fact that homosexuality is a sin is crystal clear in scripture; saying it is not so is to rationalize, to seek for an extreme, a burning bush where God stretches forth his hand and spells in clearly in the heavens that it is sin. The problem with that is that as soon as he finished there would be those that would declare God was really just dabbling like we do on scratch paper, he really did not mean it. If he meant it he would have come down in person, stood before every man, woman and child and declared SSM a sin. Even then there would be those that would delare he was not really talking about a loving relationship between two people that were drawn to each other and where love was overflowing. God is love and therefore he ordains their love for one another.

There will always be those who rationalize. Policy? It has not been policy for thosands of years.

[california boy]

You and others might have been but I have restricted myself to the words of Christ exclusively.

Fine, no problem with that.

No he did not, but as pointed out He did specifically talk about Marriage and made it clear that Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as homosexual “marriage”, they are a contradiction in terms.

I agree, he did talk about straight marriage. He did not comment on ssm. And you are wrong, there is such a thing as homosexual marriage. Why would you make such a statement? It is just that the church does not practice it and evidently neither do you.

That is all you have pointed out is it? To what end Californiaboy?

Why would a Prophet receive a revelation on an oxymoron? There has been no revelation about how the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. There has been no revelation on all natural artificial flavors. There has been no revelation on authentic reproduction. There has been no revelation on how one can be a little bit pregnant, or a controlled market economy or an extinct life form. There has been no revelation about homosexual “marriage” or a man “marrying” a refrigerator for that matter. So what?

If we are going to have to have a civil discussion on this subject, you are going to have to quit stating you OPINIONS as if they were fact. Gay marriage is not an oxymoron. It is legal in over 10% of the states in this country. If you don't want to talk about ssm as it exists in the real world then don't. But you insult your own intelegence and mine to pretend that it does not exist.

You are absolutely right. God has not revealed anything about the items that you mentioned. And if no one wants to know what God feels about those issues, then He will probably never reveal how He feels about them. The difference is, the church does not have a policy for or against the sun rising, being a little pregnant etc. I would guess that if the church did not have a policy on ssm, we would not be having this discussion as well.

And some members don’t need to justify the position held by the church because they have the words of Christ which clearly state that Marriage is between a man and a woman.

We are not having a discussion about marriage between a man and a woman, we are having a discussion about ssm. Keep focused here. The question before you is "What did God say about ssm?" So far, the answer to that question is, nothing. He has been siclet on that subject. Probably because the prophet has not wrestled with that question like other prophets have wrestled with other policy positions in the past. The church and leades are perfectly ok with the current policy. They see no need to seek revelation on the subject. I understand that, and I am not pushing for such an effort. I am simply stating what the current position of the church is on this matter.

Homosexual “marriage” supporters are not seeking equal rights, they do not want the same rights as I do, they already have the same right as I do. What they want are extra rights, rights that I do not have. And I am the one with twisted logic?

Evidently you are also one of those members that needs to fit the current situation to somehow fit your religious views. That is fine with me. But that is not what the case going before the supreme court is about nor is it what this thread is about. No one is saying that a gay person can not marry someone of the opposite sex. What the case is about, and what this discussion is about is the rights for ssm. You might have heard in the news that 3 more states extended that right to gay people even though they already had the right to a traditional marriage. The majority of people in this country feel the nation will be better off by providing the foundation of mariage to gay couples and their families. Evidently you and the church thinks it is better for this nation to not allow gay couples this same foundation to society that you and the church feels is so important to straight couples. I don't understand the logic of that position, but I respect your and the churches right to have such a belief.

Neither do I, because Jesus Christ has been quite clear that Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Or they value what Jesus Christ has said about Marriage being between a man and a woman.

Yes Jesus Christ has been quite clear about marriage between a man and a woman. Christ has however, not been clear about marriage between same sex couples. And that is actually what we have been talking about.

[california boy]

Are you really saying that scripture has never said anything about homosexual behavior? Further, are you saying that you need to be told everything that is good and everything that is bad in life? What you are looking for is the Law of Moses and being as stiffnecked as the children of Israel; wholly incapable of following the Spirit. The fact that homosexuality is a sin is crystal clear in scripture; saying it is not so is to rationalize, to seek for an extreme, a burning bush where God stretches forth his hand and spells in clearly in the heavens that it is sin. The problem with that is that as soon as he finished there would be those that would declare God was really just dabbling like we do on scratch paper, he really did not mean it. If he meant it he would have come down in person, stood before every man, woman and child and declared SSM a sin. Even then there would be those that would delare he was not really talking about a loving relationship between two people that were drawn to each other and where love was overflowing. God is love and therefore he ordains their love for one another.

There will always be those who rationalize. Policy? It has not been policy for thosands of years.

The problem with your response to me is that I have never said homosexual behavior is not a sin. Yes I agree the Bible calls homosexual behavior a sin. The Bible also calls heterosexual a sin and an abomination as well. Would you agree with that? However heterosexual behavior within the bonds of marriage is acceptable and moral. Would you agree with that? Has the church not stated over and over again that ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong? Haven't people on this very board said that sex outside of marriage for a gay person is just as wrong as sex outside of marriage is for a straight man?

Is all I am saying is we do not know from God whether homosexual behavior within the bonds of marriage is also moral because at this time God has not spoken on this subject. Right now, it is just church policy.

Let me give you a senerio which is completely speculation, and not a statement of my hope or belief. Suppose the supreme court grants the right of gay marriage and it becomes the law of the land. Suppose other Christian churches choose to start marrying gay couples. Suppose that the next generation of church members feels the church is just being bigoted by not also allowing gay marriage. Suppose this becomes such a big issue that the prophet goes to the Lord and asks Him if the church should include gay families in the church. And suppose the answer to that question is YES. And suppose the church issues a statement that this policy will now be changed. All are welcome in the church of Christ including gay couples. My guess is that we will see faithful members saying on this very board that the church never claimed not allowing gay marriage was doctrine from God but just policy by men of their time. Does this all sound familiar to you? Has this kind of thing happened before?

I am not saying this will happen, I am not hoping this will happen. I am only pointing out the difference between revealed doctrine and church policy. There is no other church that recognizes the importance of marriage in strengthening families more than the Mormon church. There is no church that encourages it's members to get married more than the Mormon church. There is no church that speaks out against all sex outside the bonds of marriage more than this church. We are commanded by God to get married. "It is not good for man to be alone". Is it so unconceivable that at some point God would want to encourage gay couples to quit living in sin and be married and raise their children in that institution? Is it so unconceivable that God wants all of His children to find happiness, love and fulfillment that marriage brings? Does a gay man also need a helpmate in life?

Since this seems to be something that some members of this board seem to miss constantly, let me state again. I am not pushing for such a thing to happen. I am not justifying homosexuality. I am not trying to get the church to change their position on ssm. I am not asking anyone to accept what I have speculated on. I am only discussing the concept. This is a discussion board. It is not a place that doctrine is decided upon. Are we clear on that? If anyone makes such a claim against me, I am simply going to paste this paragraph as a response. lol. I feel like I am writing a clause to a contract.

Edited November 11, 2012 by california boy

[Kemara]

I agree, he did talk about straight marriage. He did not comment on ssm.

Utter nonsense. Christ said nothing about “straight” marriage; there is no such thing as “straight” marriage. There is just Marriage.

And you are wrong, there is such a thing as homosexual marriage. Why would you make such a statement?

Christ said that Marriage is between and man and a woman. There is no other form of Marriage. Christ did not define marriage as “straight” or “homosexual”, Marriage is Marriage it doesnt have subsets. In the context of this discussion I am not concerned one bit with what the civil authorities define marriage as. In the context of this discussion I am not concerned one bit with the labels people want to attach to marriage. Marriage as defined by Jesus Christ is between a man and a woman, there is no other type of Marriage. To use the word homosexual or straight or pumpkin or walrus with the word Marriage to describe a relationship is a contradiction in terms. There is only Marriage and Marriage according to Christ is between a man and a woman.

It is just that the church does not practice it and evidently neither do you.

Wrong again, I have made it clear that I am not bringing the church into this at all, I am going exclusively off the words of Christ as found in scripture. The words of Christ define Marriage as between a man and a woman.

If we are going to have to have a civil discussion on this subject, you are going to have to quit stating you OPINIONS as if they were fact.

Pot meet kettle.

Christ defining Marriage as being between a man and a woman is not an opinion it is a fact.

Gay marriage is not an oxymoron. It is legal in over 10% of the states in this country. If you don't want to talk about ssm as it exists in the real world then don't. But you insult your own intelegence and mine to pretend that it does not exist.

Legality of something labelled “marriage” does not trump the definition of Christ. The oxymoronic homosexual “marriage” could be legal in 100% of the states in your country. So what? It falls outside the definition of marriage given by Christ. Marriage is between a man and a woman, there is no other type of Marriage. You can have the label, labels seem important to you, but labelling something as a marriage doesn’t make it a marriage. “Homosexual marriage” is no more a marriage than “vehicular marriage” is a marriage not matter what the label says.

I would guess that if the church did not have a policy on ssm, we would not be having this discussion as well.

You would guess wrong, I am not talking about the church, I am talking about the words of Christ.

We are not having a discussion about marriage between a man and a woman, we are having a discussion about ssm. Keep focused here.

I am not talking about marriage between a man and a woman either. I am talking about Marriage, and more specifically Marriage as defined by Christ. It just so happens that Christ defines Marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The question before you is "What did God say about ssm?" So far, the answer to that question is, nothing.

There is no such thing as homosexual “marriage” why would Christ say anything about it, I doubt very much He would say anything about a flying spaghetti monster either. He has however talked about Marriage and he has made it clear that it is between a man and a woman.

Evidently you are also one of those members that needs to fit the current situation to somehow fit your religious views. That is fine with me.

I am one of the members of what that needs to fit the current situation? Do you mean a member of the church? I assure you that my views on the utter nonsense pedalled as equal rights has nothing to do with my membership in the church. It has to do with my ability to think critically, to use reason and logic, to think on a matter in terms of principles instead of punch lines.

But that is not what the case going before the supreme court is about nor is it what this thread is about. No one is saying that a gay person can not marry someone of the opposite sex. What the case is about, and what this discussion is about is the rights for ssm.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Proponents of homosexual “marriage” want extra rights, they are not happy with the same rights that everyone else has, they want special rights not equal rights.

You might have heard in the news that 3 more states extended that right to gay people even though they already had the right to a traditional marriage. The majority of people in this country feel the nation will be better off by providing the foundation of mariage to gay couples and their families.

So? What is your appeal to numbers supposed to achieve? The acceptance by a country of an abomination has nothing whatsoever to do with how Christ feels about it and it doesn’t sway my own personal opinion on the matter either.

Evidently you and the church thinks it is better for this nation to not allow gay couples this same foundation to society that you and the church feels is so important to straight couples. I don't understand the logic of that position, but I respect your and the churches right to have such a belief.

I am quite sure that the church and I have rather different views on homosexual “marriage”. But that isn’t what I have been talking about. I have been talking about how Christ defines Marriage and in case you missed it Christ defines Marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Yes Jesus Christ has been quite clear about marriage between a man and a woman. Christ has however, not been clear about marriage between same sex couples. And that is actually what we have been talking about.

No, Christ has not been clear about marriage between a man and a woman. He has been clear about Marriage, and it is between a man and a woman. There is an awfully big difference.

[Kemara]

I know that this post by Californiaboy wasn’t directed specifically at me but I am going to address a couple of points in it anyway.

…I have never said homosexual behaviour is not a sin...I agree the Bible calls homosexual behavior a sin. The Bible also calls heterosexual a sin and an abomination as well...However heterosexual behaviour within the bonds of marriage is acceptable and moral. Has the church not stated over and over again that ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong?

I agree with everything you have stated to this point.

…all I am saying is we do not know from God whether homosexual behavior within the bonds of marriage is also moral because at this time God has not spoken on this subject. Right now, it is just church policy.

Unfortunately this is where you fall apart. What you are saying here is that it is possible that homosexual sex could be considered moral if done within the bonds of marriage. The logic of this would also need to be applied to all situations in the bible where sexual acts are condemned. By your reasoning bestiality could be considered moral within the bonds of marriage.

However, all of this is moot because there is no such thing as homosexual “marriage” just as there is no such thing as “marriage” between an animal and a man. All homosexual sex, whether performed under the civil label “marriage” or not, is a sin.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Kemara

[california boy]

I know that this post by Californiaboy wasn’t directed specifically at me but I am going to address a couple of points in it anyway.

I agree with everything you have stated to this point.

Unfortunately this is where you fall apart. What you are saying here is that it is possible that homosexual sex could be considered moral if done within the bonds of marriage. The logic of this would also need to be applied to all situations in the bible where sexual acts are condemned. By your reasoning bestiality could be considered moral within the bonds of marriage.

However, all of this is moot because there is no such thing as homosexual “marriage” just as there is no such thing as “marriage” between an animal and a man. All homosexual sex, whether performed under the civil label “marriage” or not, is a sin.

Ok with that I will leave you to your own demise. When someone starts comparing marriage between two consenting adults to sex with animals, I am through with the conversation.

We obviously disagree and there is no point in continuing this conversation with you. I would like however to hear from others about this subject.

[Kemara]

When someone starts comparing marriage between two consenting adults to sex with animals, I am through with the conversation.

LOL, I did no such thing.

[california boy]

LOL, I did no such thing.

You are such in denial. This is what you said.

Unfortunately this is where you fall apart. What you are saying here is that it is possible that homosexual sex could be considered moral if done within the bonds of marriage. The logic of this would also need to be applied to all situations in the bible where sexual acts are condemned. By your reasoning bestiality could be considered moral within the bonds of marriage

And you have yet to provide one single scripture in any of the standard works where Christ said "Mfarriage is only between a man and a woman. So there is nothing to laugh at here.

.

[Kemara]

You are such in denial. This is what you said.

And you have yet to provide one single scripture in any of the standard works where Christ said "Mfarriage is only between a man and a woman. So there is nothing to laugh at here.

LOLOL, this just keeps getting better and better. :rofl:

Please by all means show me where I compared marriage between two consenting adults to sex with animals. Please, please, please do it I cant wait for the next laugh.

[Storm Rider]

The problem with your response to me is that I have never said homosexual behavior is not a sin. Yes I agree the Bible calls homosexual behavior a sin. The Bible also calls heterosexual a sin and an abomination as well. Would you agree with that? However heterosexual behavior within the bonds of marriage is acceptable and moral. Would you agree with that? Has the church not stated over and over again that ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong? Haven't people on this very board said that sex outside of marriage for a gay person is just as wrong as sex outside of marriage is for a straight man?

Is all I am saying is we do not know from God whether homosexual behavior within the bonds of marriage is also moral because at this time God has not spoken on this subject. Right now, it is just church policy.

Let me give you a senerio which is completely speculation, and not a statement of my hope or belief. Suppose the supreme court grants the right of gay marriage and it becomes the law of the land. Suppose other Christian churches choose to start marrying gay couples. Suppose that the next generation of church members feels the church is just being bigoted by not also allowing gay marriage. Suppose this becomes such a big issue that the prophet goes to the Lord and asks Him if the church should include gay families in the church. And suppose the answer to that question is YES. And suppose the church issues a statement that this policy will now be changed. All are welcome in the church of Christ including gay couples. My guess is that we will see faithful members saying on this very board that the church never claimed not allowing gay marriage was doctrine from God but just policy by men of their time. Does this all sound familiar to you? Has this kind of thing happened before?

I am not saying this will happen, I am not hoping this will happen. I am only pointing out the difference between revealed doctrine and church policy. There is no other church that recognizes the importance of marriage in strengthening families more than the Mormon church. There is no church that encourages it's members to get married more than the Mormon church. There is no church that speaks out against all sex outside the bonds of marriage more than this church. We are commanded by God to get married. "It is not good for man to be alone". Is it so unconceivable that at some point God would want to encourage gay couples to quit living in sin and be married and raise their children in that institution? Is it so unconceivable that God wants all of His children to find happiness, love and fulfillment that marriage brings? Does a gay man also need a helpmate in life?

Since this seems to be something that some members of this board seem to miss constantly, let me state again. I am not pushing for such a thing to happen. I am not justifying homosexuality. I am not trying to get the church to change their position on ssm. I am not asking anyone to accept what I have speculated on. I am only discussing the concept. This is a discussion board. It is not a place that doctrine is decided upon. Are we clear on that? If anyone makes such a claim against me, I am simply going to paste this paragraph as a response. lol. I feel like I am writing a clause to a contract.

Speculation is okay, but I must admit I tend to dislike such topics on this board regardless of topic. But, for a bowl of Trix I will state the following: I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ is running solely on policy today, but I think their position is based upon scripture. It is possible for revelation to address this topic anew under the context of all things are possible. However, that this topic is fundamental to God's teachings on morality, the purpose of creation, and sin.

I do think that the Church has answered in an incomplete manner when it has, and members have, stated that we only express our sexuality within the bonds of matrimony. That is only part of the answer, a good one, but only part of the whole answer. Fundamentally, SSA is completely at odds with God's teachings on the purpose of creation and the meaning of being a man or a woman. Further, I believe it is self-evident that biology and science clearly declares that man is made for a woman and vice-versa.

I do not equate this topic with the topic of the priesthood or any other topic. This stands alone and is only being discussed because of the force-fed media devotion to making SSA acceptable in most soceities of the world. I tire of the onslaught of evening television that wants to dictate to me how loving, how normal, how funny, gay people are and how I need to accept them as they are. As for me, if someone wants to be gay, I say knock yourself out, but do it with your eyes open. Understand what type of culture you are getting yourself into; few are as self-destructive and so completely hedonistic. Purely from a cultural position I find a problem with gay life. (Yes, I know you are not pushing a position of any kind, this is a discussion and I hope you understand that I am just discussing and not directying anything at you personally.)

[Bikeemikey]

I am not talking about what the church thinks is moral or immoral. I am only talking about what God thinks is moral or immoral. We certainly know that Got thinks that marriage is moral. We DON'T know whether God thinks that ssm is moral. He has not said anything about that subject by His words while he was on this earth or by revelation to His prophets. So at this time the policy on ssm is just that, policy.

I understand that some believe the proclamation on the family is scripture. The church however has not recognized it as such. That is ALL I am saying. Currently the proclamation is a statement of belief. And currently the policy of ssm is a statement of belief.Both will remain such until such time as the prophet receives a revelation about them, This is the same as blacks holding the priesthood. That policy was a statement of belief until God corrected that policy in 1978. Who knows, God may never reveal anything about ssm. If that is the case, then this policy will stay in force for eternity. I am not expecting or hoping for a revelation on this matter from God. I am only identifying the current state of that policy.

Hey California boy,

If you are trying to argue for the position that homosexuals should be entitled to engage on marriage, and that they should be able to have equal access to govt advantages (tax for example) that heterosexuals currently have access to then you need to drop the whole god doesn't think homosexuality is a sin.

You don't need to demonstrate this at all and you can't. The LDS church is based on revelation and modern prophecy and there are dozens of talks from prophets that clearly say it is. Your aren't going to win this portion of the debate, and you don't need to.

You are simply reinforcing the deeper concern that homosexuals will not rest until they have ensured that all religions are forced to accept that homosexuality is not a sin. You will erode huge support for your for your immediate objective.