Mormonsandgays

[thesometimesaint]

God is just. He will judge each one of us by what we did with what we knew. He also judges by the intents of our hearts.

[rongo]

Ummm... okay. The Journal of Discourses is a record of the early general conferences of the church but if you feel that is obscure, I won't argue it anymore.

It's hard to keep up on this thread. Especially if you haven't been on the boards for a couple of days . . .

Actually, only 356 of the 1417 items in Journal of Discourses are Conference talks (i.e., about 25%). The rest of it is items like dedicatory prayers, court transcripts, 4th of July speeches, 24th of July speeches, special events, and church talks in other venues (i.e., regular Sunday meetings, conferences, etc.)

I am writing a series of commentaries on Journal of Discourses topics, and call it "Out of Obscurity" (which many will recognize as a phrase out of Doctrine and Covenants).

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1239

I am a school teacher with a family of six (stay-at-home wife), so writing and publishing has to be "here a little, and there a little." I hope to have a second volume done sometime in the next year (on a Zion Society, and Adam-God).

I would like to de-mystify Journal of Discourses and bring it "out of obscurity," because there is a treasure trove of second-to-none quotes, analogies, anecdotes, etc. that are almost completely unknown ---- and these are in many cases superior to the "same old" recycled ones everybody is familiar with. I also think (based on familiarity with all of the JoD content) that fears and concerns about what is in JoD are completely unfounded.

You haven't provided any evidence that the quotes were taken out of context. I was told that if I can't provide evidence when asked that I had to retract my statement or leave the thread.

I would like to address your quotes, but can't look through 32 pages of this thread. Can you point me to a page number(s) in this thread, or give me the references (if you have them at hand)?

I started a thread giving several examples of the Brethren openly considering polygamy to be temporary and looking to a time when it would be done away with. As far as the priesthood ban, President Kimball's referencing in OD2 of "promises made by the prophets and presidents opf the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood" does hark back to direct statements in JoD (there may be others not in JoD he had in mind as well). Wilford Woodruff proclaimed that at a future date, all people would have access to temple ordinances and blessings (he singled out blacks), and Brigham Young mentioned multiple times that the day would come when blacks would have the priesthood. He even made the statement that there were people in the audience who would live to see that day, which is remarkable, not that there might have been a newborn in the audience who lived to be 116 ( ), but that he was that close in pinpointing the time frame.

[rongo]

If this is true, why did it take a revelation from God to allow the blacks to hold the priesthood? Couldn't they have simply asked the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency to agree to the change? Or do you not believe that Spencer W. Kimball received an actual revelation?

You were referencing this statement from me from many pages back:

How do you figure that we "don't yet have the revealed word of the Lord on the matter?" Whenever the two leading Quorums are united enough to codify it in worthiness, temple recommend, etc. interviews, isn't it "revealed?" Barring what I guess you and others are holding out for ----- God to say something like "Uh, yeah guys, I kind of got that one wrong in the past. Sorry ----- both same and opposite sex married couples are good to go with full sanction" ---- it's as revealed as it ever will be.

The ironic thing is that those who agitate for changes along these lines would realize that a change has been made ----- when, exactly? Oh, yeah ---- when the two leading Quorums unitedly declare it so (in words and policy actions). But under your past logic (under this hypothetical scenario), couldn't the "traditionalists" just say at that point (as you and others are doing now) "It isn't revealed ----- and just wait ----- God's going to change it back in the future."

The policy wasn't changed prior to 1978 for the simple reason that QFP and Q12 were not united on it. The question had been raised previously over decades, and then-Elder Kimball famously asked President Grant about changing it (President Grant agreed with him, but stated that he wasn't comfortable overturning it without a revelation authorizing him to).

I do believe that President Kimball received a revelation. I believe that summer of 1978 was the right time, and that prior to that would have been premature (both for society and for the Church).

[Scott Lloyd]

It's hard to keep up on this thread. Especially if you haven't been on the boards for a couple of days . . .

Actually, only 356 of the 1417 items in Journal of Discourses are Conference talks (i.e., about 25%). The rest of it is items like dedicatory prayers, court transcripts, 4th of July speeches, 24th of July speeches, special events, and church talks in other venues (i.e., regular Sunday meetings, conferences, etc.)

I am writing a series of commentaries on Journal of Discourses topics, and call it "Out of Obscurity" (which many will recognize as a phrase out of Doctrine and Covenants).

http://bookstore.fai...id_product=1239

I am a school teacher with a family of six (stay-at-home wife), so writing and publishing has to be "here a little, and there a little." I hope to have a second volume done sometime in the next year (on a Zion Society, and Adam-God).

I would like to de-mystify Journal of Discourses and bring it "out of obscurity," because there is a treasure trove of second-to-none quotes, analogies, anecdotes, etc. that are almost completely unknown ---- and these are in many cases superior to the "same old" recycled ones everybody is familiar with. I also think (based on familiarity with all of the JoD content) that fears and concerns about what is in JoD are completely unfounded.

I would like to address your quotes, but can't look through 32 pages of this thread. Can you point me to a page number(s) in this thread, or give me the references (if you have them at hand)?

I started a thread giving several examples of the Brethren openly considering polygamy to be temporary and looking to a time when it would be done away with. As far as the priesthood ban, President Kimball's referencing in OD2 of "promises made by the prophets and presidents opf the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood" does hark back to direct statements in JoD (there may be others not in JoD he had in mind as well). Wilford Woodruff proclaimed that at a future date, all people would have access to temple ordinances and blessings (he singled out blacks), and Brigham Young mentioned multiple times that the day would come when blacks would have the priesthood. He even made the statement that there were people in the audience who would live to see that day, which is remarkable, not that there might have been a newborn in the audience who lived to be 116 ( ), but that he was that close in pinpointing the time frame.

Rongo,

I've pretty much resigned from this thread and am not eager to get back into it. But I appreciate your input.

Will you please look at post numbers 483 and 490 in this thread and comment on the quotations given there by rockpond and perhaps provide some context if you can?

Thanks much.

[rongo]

Perhaps gay men want to marry for a number of reasons as well.

I know that there's no way to know ("how can anyone even know that, Napoleon?"), but here's a question:

How many gay men and women really want to marry? As a proportion of the whole?

What percentage would homosexual and SSM advocates arrive at (obviously, everyon would have different numbers, but what numbers they choose indicates how many they think want to)?

Many of the homosexuals I know have no interest in SSM, don't agitate for it, and are happy with "live and let live."

Just curious what people think this number is.

[rockpond]

Regarding your statements... I have never argued that the Brethren didn't also teach the temporary nature of polygamy and barring blacks from the temple/priesthood. My position was that there wasn't absolute clarity as they were known to have sometimes taught them as eternal or at least pre-Millenial. It has not been my intention to criticize the early leadership of the church with the hindsight that they may have said something incorrect. Instead, my goal (which I thought I had made clear, but possibly didn't) is to suggest that maybe we should avoid placing to much weight on the "never" statements regarding acceptance of homosexuality. Just maybe we should avoid attempts to predict what the Lord can & cannot reveal. Similarly, as you have stated, past mistakes on the part of our leaders don't legitimize presupposing that we can disregard that which is currently revealed.

I do believe that President Kimball received a revelation. I believe that summer of 1978 was the right time, and that prior to that would have been premature (both for society and for the Church).

I think this statement is a good illustration of my point. I hear this type of sentiment frequently from fellow members: the church and/or society wasn't ready for blacks to be allowed to hold the priesthood & participate in the temple ordinances prior to 1978. Yet many of those same members will also state that greater acceptance of homosexuality is not a matter of time because it's an eternal principle that will never change. It does't seem logical to me to hold to both of those opinions.

[Walden]

I know that there's no way to know ("how can anyone even know that, Napoleon?"), but here's a question:

How many gay men and women really want to marry? As a proportion of the whole?

What percentage would homosexual and SSM advocates arrive at (obviously, everyon would have different numbers, but what numbers they choose indicates how many they think want to)?

Many of the homosexuals I know have no interest in SSM, don't agitate for it, and are happy with "live and let live."

Just curious what people think this number is.

Judging by the numbers of hetero couples that I know who are living together without any intention of getting married, the ever-climbing rates of mothers having children with no father's present, and the rate of divorce in this country, it appears that "Many of the (heterosexuals) I know have no interest in (marriage), don't agitate for it, and are happy with "live and let live."......should we just disband the institution of marriage altogether?

I would think that the percentage of SS couples who desire to marry is likely lower than that of hetero couples, though that may be due to a number of factors, including the fact that for most, SSM has never even been an option, so why would they consider it?

If rights are dependent on a popularity contest, then this country is in more danger than I imagined.

[CV75]

Perhaps you are right. I can't really foresee the future and what it might bring. What I am pretty sure of Is I will remain gay throughout my mortal experience. I don't foresee such an integral part of me changing in the afterlife any more that you can imagine that your orientation will change when you die. Maybe heaven will be a place without an orientation, but I highly doubt that any more than I highly doubt your orientation will change after death.

I identify myself as an exmormon, and I am no longer on the rolls of the church. I am also only expressing how I feel about things and I am not in any way representing any community or group. I am sure you can all appreciate that. I don't mind saying how I feel about things. It is at least a different perspective than a straight members perspective.

The Lord promises that impediments of any kind to an exalted marriage (including the unknown causes of mortal homosexual orientation) have been overcome though His atonement, and will be eradicated in the afterlife to the extent He accepts our efforts in this life in faithfully facing those impediments. So from an LDS perspective, homosexuality as an impediment to an exalted marriage has been removed and the death experience may be sufficient to free up or stimulate the desire for an exalted marriage. I can say the same about all my own impediments to being the kind of man I know the Lord suffered for me to become.

Since you identify as an exmormon, you retain some of your former identity and the LDS perspective has some relevance to you. In other words, I don’t believe you can understand Mormonism the way you do and have a sound rationale for asserting that its adherents don’t have a basis for thinking that homosexuality needn’t be a permanent obstacle that cannot be overcome in the post-mortal spirit world. At least a secular person could argue against these doctrines out of a lack of appreciation or ignorance about them, but you lack that advantage--your mind has already been opened too far!

[rongo]

Judging by the numbers of hetero couples that I know who are living together without any intention of getting married, the ever-climbing rates of mothers having children with no father's present, and the rate of divorce in this country, it appears that "Many of the (heterosexuals) I know have no interest in (marriage), don't agitate for it, and are happy with "live and let live."......should we just disband the institution of marriage altogether?

False dillema. That is one criticism directed at heterosexuals that stings ---- without a doubt: the sorry state of traditional marriage in the world. Hetersexuals are not exactly the ones who should be trumpeting the virtues of marriage when they're failing so miserably at it. Etc.

The fact remains that marriage as an institution has been around since the beginning of time ---- but it has *never* included SSM, even in cultures that sanctioned homosexuality (e.g., ancient Greece and Rome). Any "man on the street" survey of someone back then --- even one who indulged in the "women for child-bearing, men for pleasure" culture, would have looked at you like you had two heads if you would have suggested the thought of gay marriage. Not even they considered gay marriage marriage.

So, to attempt to throw this back doesn't work. No, we should not "disband the institution of marriage altogether" because of the recent decay in societal morals in general. The insitution of traditional marriage has a precedent, a very old one.

I would think that the percentage of SS couples who desire to marry is likely lower than that of hetero couples

I agree, and that's why I asked. I don't personally know any gay couples who want to marry. My wife's uncle and his partner of many years don't want to. None of the gay men I have counseled and worked with as a bishop were SSM agitators, and some are even more against the SSM agenda than I am (even while practicing homosexuality).

though that may be due to a number of factors, including the fact that for most, SSM has never even been an option, so why would they consider it?

Isn't everyone aware of it as an option, now? I still maintain the the majority of gay couples don't want to marry, even with the availability of it as an option.

[rockpond]

The Lord promises that impediments of any kind to an exalted marriage (including the unknown causes of mortal homosexual orientation) have been overcome though His atonement, and will be eradicated in the afterlife to the extent He accepts our efforts in this life in faithfully facing those impediments. So from an LDS perspective, homosexuality as an impediment to an exalted marriage has been removed and the death experience may be sufficient to free up or stimulate the desire for an exalted marriage. I can say the same about all my own impediments to being the kind of man I know the Lord suffered for me to become.

Do you have a reference for your first statement? I'd like to read that.

Having spent some time discussing this with gay members, I can safely say that for at least some of them this is not a particularly comforting doctrine. Homosexual orientation is not something overlaid on a heterosexual person that just simply needs to be removed. The idea that they will be turned straight means that they will no longer recognize the person that they are in the eternities. That can be a frightening prospect. It is also a bit confusing in light of the eternal identity theology.

I think it's useful to try to see past the lust/sexual desire piece of orientation. We are talking about people who have an innate desire for life-long and eternal companionship with someone of the same gender. Saying that the atonement will heal you is akin to saying: "don't worry, when you die, you'll be blessed with a personality transplant and all will be well". (For some, not all.)

[rockpond]

I still maintain the the majority of gay couples don't want to marry, even with the availability of it as an option.

Maybe I've missed something important in this discussion but I completely fail to see the relevance of how many might want it.

A small fraction of the global population desires to be sealed in an LDS temple but that doesn't stop us from spending enormous amounts of money & time to make sure it's available to everyone who ever lived.

[Walden]

False dillema. That is one criticism directed at heterosexuals that stings ---- without a doubt: the sorry state of traditional marriage in the world. Hetersexuals are not exactly the ones who should be trumpeting the virtues of marriage when they're failing so miserably at it. Etc.

The fact remains that marriage as an institution has been around since the beginning of time ---- but it has *never* included SSM, even in cultures that sanctioned homosexuality (e.g., ancient Greece and Rome). Any "man on the street" survey of someone back then --- even one who indulged in the "women for child-bearing, men for pleasure" culture, would have looked at you like you had two heads if you would have suggested the thought of gay marriage. Not even they considered gay marriage marriage.

So, to attempt to throw this back doesn't work. No, we should not "disband the institution of marriage altogether" because of the recent decay in societal morals in general. The insitution of traditional marriage has a precedent, a very old one.

I agree, and that's why I asked. I don't personally know any gay couples who want to marry. My wife's uncle and his partner of many years don't want to. None of the gay men I have counseled and worked with as a bishop were SSM agitators, and some are even more against the SSM agenda than I am (even while practicing homosexuality).

Isn't everyone aware of it as an option, now? I still maintain the the majority of gay couples don't want to marry, even with the availability of it as an option.

By your logic, are you okay with slavery? The fact remains that slavery, as an "institution has been around since the beginning of time" and the "institution of (slavery) has a precedent, a very old one;" fortunately, we have been wise enough in modern times to forsake that tradition, at least in the western world. Just because an institution has had a long tradition does not make it just or right or fair.

And you can't possibly be arguing that because the gay people that you personally know are not desirous of gay marriage, that can be extrapolated to the entire gay population? So, for argument's sake, even if there is a small percentage of gay's who want to marry (let's say it is only 10-20% of the entire gay population), you think that they should be denied this right because they only represent a small portion of the overall population?

This is what I meant when I said that rights should not be subjected to a popularity contest.

An no, not "everyone (is) aware of (gay marriage) as an option, now?" because the fact remains that in the vast majority of states in this country, gay marriage is not an option. And when it comes to the federal government, nowhere is gay marriage an option.

[wenglund]

Maybe I've missed something important in this discussion but I completely fail to see the relevance of how many might want it.

A small fraction of the global population desires to be sealed in an LDS temple but that doesn't stop us from spending enormous amounts of money & time to make sure it's available to everyone who ever lived.

The SSM debate is rife with absurd comparisons like this one.

It makes perfect sense for members to sacrifice considerable amounts of money and time for something with potentially enormous positive eternal outcomes.

On the other hand, it makes no sense for society to devote any resources so that a relatively few gays can coop a decidedly heterosexual convention, and this since there are no demonstrable net positive benefits in doing so and a good chance that there will be negative net consequences--not only by their profaning the sacred, but by their potentially loading up the court system with higher risk relationships.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Do you have a reference for your first statement? I'd like to read that.

Having spent some time discussing this with gay members, I can safely say that for at least some of them this is not a particularly comforting doctrine. Homosexual orientation is not something overlaid on a heterosexual person that just simply needs to be removed. The idea that they will be turned straight means that they will no longer recognize the person that they are in the eternities. That can be a frightening prospect. It is also a bit confusing in light of the eternal identity theology.

I think it's useful to try to see past the lust/sexual desire piece of orientation. We are talking about people who have an innate desire for life-long and eternal companionship with someone of the same gender. Saying that the atonement will heal you is akin to saying: "don't worry, when you die, you'll be blessed with a personality transplant and all will be well". (For some, not all.)

I base the first sentence on any scripture that covers the infinite scope of the Atonement. No blessing will be withheld from anyone with faith to seek, obtain and carry out the Lord’s will*. Many a conference talk also attests to the physical, mental, emotional, behavioral, spiritual, and other aspects and applications of Christ’s converting and healing power—it corrects any and all deviation from the ideal He made possible through His suffering.

*Just one example: “What of the many mature members of the Church who are not married? Through no failing of their own, they deal with the trials of life alone. Be we all reminded that, in the Lord’s own way and time, no blessings will be withheld from His faithful Saints. The Lord will judge and reward each individual according to heartfelt desire as well as deed.” (Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Celestial Marriage,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2008, 94.)

I do not believe that dysfunctional lust and desire (whether hetero- or homosexual) are the only impediments to a happy eternal marriage, or that relationships involving homosexual orientation are characterized only by lust and desire (as much as some obviously do make it so). There are all sorts of ranges and expressions of libido. I do believe that any impediment to making and keeping covenants can be overcome through the Atonement, if not now, then in the afterlife, but in any case only for the willing.

So I do not believe that is a matter of magically turning straight but a matter of placing the desire for the Lord first so that all other blessings follow. Those LDS who insist that the Church much change should keep an open mind about how they have an opportunity to change so they ca lay claim upon the blessings that are the essence of their faith.

[wenglund]

By your logic, are you okay with slavery? The fact remains that slavery, as an "institution has been around since the beginning of time" and the "institution of (slavery) has a precedent, a very old one;" fortunately, we have been wise enough in modern times to forsake that tradition, at least in the western world. Just because an institution has had a long tradition does not make it just or right or fair...

Yet another absurd comparison. It isn't just the length of the tradition that has bearing. There is also the various general societal benefits of the institution that ought to be considered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

The SSM debate is rife with absurd comparisons like this one.

It makes perfect sense for members to sacrifice considerable amounts of money and time for something with potentially enormous positive eternal outcomes.

On the other hand, it makes no sense for society to devote any resources so that a relatively few gays can coop a decidedly heterosexual convention, and this since there are no demonstrable net positive benefits in doing so and a good chance that there will be negative net consequences--not only by their profaning the sacred, but by their potentially loading up the court system with higher risk relationships.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I wasn't suggesting that we should stop devoting ourselves to temple work. And I believe there are net positive benefits of gay marriage... the same benefits that we gain in our heterosexual marriages.

Higher risk relationships? Wow, I'm shocked at so many harsh words on a thread devoted to the new church website pleading for compassion.

[rockpond]

Yet another absurd comparison. It isn't just the length of the tradition that has bearing. There is also the various general societal benefits of the institution that ought to be considered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Please recognize that this lengthy tradition has been modified and redefined many times. Without those re-definitions it might not have the same societal benefits that it has now. Further opening the institution to loving, committed gay couples strengthens it and spreads those blessings to more families.

[bridget_night]

An lds mom of a gay son gave me permission to share this with you all. It does a good job showing both the positive and negative of this website:

My bishop emailed me yesterday and asked for my take on the website. This is my email back to him which expresses my feelings.

Bishop,

I appreciate your asking me what my thoughts are on the new website . I have explored most of it. I have mixed feelings. I think is important for you as a bishop to see how this website is perceived by those who have gay loved ones. I know I am not alone in my feelings.

First....what a huge step for the church who has been in the "dark ages" for a long, long time. So many lives have been lost and destroyed because leaders have not spoken up in the past in a smart, scientifically and psychologically intelligent way. Finally we have a little bit more from the church. At least this will let members know that this website replaces the the "Miracle of Forgiveness" where homosexuals are called "perverts" which is still sold at Deseret Book and available in braille at lds.org <http://lds.org/> (I am being completely honest including some of my valid frustrations that have built up over the years!)

I am grateful that they have acknowledged that this is not an easy topic. I'm glad they are telling the truth, that homosexual feelings are real, good people experience it, and it does not go away.

I was glad to see "Judy's" video where her gay grandson lives with her. He is not in the church and this is where 80% of our gay lds brothers and sisters reside - out of the church! I was glad to see Judy showing love and kindness and saying that she would never trade her gay family for anyone else.

I was grateful for the words of Elder Cook. You could feel his emotion and love. He said love was more important than anything else and I appreciate that. My gay friend I told you about experienced some positive feelings from his mom after she viewed the website. It softened her heart. She just needed permission to love her son as he is. And she got that from the website. I think that is good but also very sad, that she needed that permission. The tendency to reject her son is what the dialogue in our church over the years has caused. Sad. But we must move on!

I think this website will soften the heart of those who are bigoted and judgmental. I think it will show those politically conscious members that love comes before politics. I think this will definitely like I said give everyone permission to extend more love towards gay individuals.

My concerns are that I did not see addressed the 800% increase in the likelihood of suicide when youth feel rejection by family members. (Real Statistic) That is huge and should have been addressed. Too many kids commit or attempt suicide. Almost everyone I know who is gay and lds has either tried it or has been dangerously close to trying to take their life. The pamphlet I gave you (Family Acceptance Project) would have been a great addition to this website. Eleven years of research went into that pamphlet and it is invaluable in teaching parents HOW to show accepting instead of rejecting behaviors.

I am also concerned about the talk about hope. Let me tell you, I have the strongest testimony of the atonement and of hope in Jesus Christ. It is everything to me. But I also know from personal experience with those close to me, that there is no hope for a young man when he is told he can have no love in his life. Honestly, how would we respond if we were told we would have to give up our spouses, our families, and everything that includes, in order to have the holy ghost and be good in the sight of God? I wonder how many of the brethren would willing to set an example to show us how to do it? Could you do it? Honestly? Good for the several on the website that have adjusted to this. But I have to say , they are the exception and not the rule.

I feel like the despair of this stand the church has taken was not at all addressed. Kids feel total despair when they are told they cannot have love in their life. My sweet friend, the gay return missionary, just told me last night his greatest desire is that he just wants to be loved by someone. Any 22 year old wants to feel love emotionally and physically. We were programmed that way and I think it is very unfortunate that in the church we deny that to our gay brothers and sisters.

There you have it! My take on the website. I hope you are not offended by my honesty. I am a proud mother of gay son and I have walked through my own personal battle field that includes battling rhetoric from the church, so I have slightly different take on this issue than your average Mormon mom.

[rockpond]

*Just one example: “What of the many mature members of the Church who are not married? Through no failing of their own, they deal with the trials of life alone. Be we all reminded that, in the Lord’s own way and time, no blessings will be withheld from His faithful Saints. The Lord will judge and reward each individual according to heartfelt desire as well as deed.” (Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Celestial Marriage,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2008, 94.)

And what of those whose heartfelt desire is to be with someone of the same gender for all eternity?

I do not believe that dysfunctional lust and desire (whether hetero- or homosexual) are the only impediments to a happy eternal marriage, or that relationships involving homosexual orientation are characterized only by lust and desire (as much as some obviously do make it so). There are all sorts of ranges and expressions of libido. I do believe that any impediment to making and keeping covenants can be overcome through the Atonement, if not now, then in the afterlife, but in any case only for the willing.

So I do not believe that is a matter of magically turning straight but a matter of placing the desire for the Lord first so that all other blessings follow. Those LDS who insist that the Church much change should keep an open mind about how they have an opportunity to change so they ca lay claim upon the blessings that are the essence of their faith.

That still doesn't console the gay person who, from their perspective, would have to be changed into a different person to partake of this benefit of the atonement?

[wenglund]

I wasn't suggesting that we should stop devoting ourselves to temple work.

No one suggested that you did. I only spoke to your absurd comparison.

And I believe there are net positive benefits of gay marriage, the same benefits that we gain in our heterosexual marriages.

That's absurd. One of the main reasons governments got into the business of marriage was to encourage procreative relations becoming formally committed and long-lasting since it was determined that children fare far better when they are born and raised in wedlock than out of wedlock. Since homosexual relationships are not by nature procreative, then societies have had no vested interest in those relationships becoming formally committed or long lasting.

Higher risk relationships? Wow, I'm shocked at so many harsh words on a thread devoted to the new church website pleading for compassion.

I am simply stating a fact. Statistically, homosexuals are far more prone than heterosexuals to promiscuity, infidelity, domestic violence, and serial/short-term relationships. This makes them high risk. If the facts are shocking and seemingly lacking compassion to you, then don't blame me. I am simply the messenger.

Besides, the plea for compassion on the Church's web site isn't intended to be used as stick to beat well-intentioned messengers, like myself, over the head with or to dismiss our opposing views about SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Please recognize that this lengthy tradition has been modified and redefined many times. Without those re-definitions it might not have the same societal benefits that it has now.

Generally speaking, the legal definition and societal benefits have remained relatively and essentially unchanged over the last 2 millennium. The exception to that rule has been the last half century--which has seen an eroding and bastardizing of the legal definition, which has caused marriages, and particularly lasting marriages, as well as societal benefits, to declined.

Further opening the institution to loving, committed gay couples strengthens it and spreads those blessings to more families.

Wrong. Unlike with traditional marriages, the cost to societies in legalizing SSM have yet to be demonstrated as out-weighing, let alone equaling the benefits. And, social statistics seem to suggest otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 12, 2012 by wenglund

[rockpond]

That's absurd. One of the main reasons governments got into the business of marriage was to encourage procreative relations becoming formally committed and long-lasting since it was determined that children fare far better when they are born and raised in wedlock than out of wedlock. Since homosexual relationships are not by nature procreative, then societies have had no vested interest in those relationships becoming formally committed or long lasting.

I'm not sure you can prove that is one "one of the main reasons" government got into the business of marriage. I doubt I can disprove it either so I'm not asking for proof. But, it is a fact that the legal benefits provided to married couples go beyond just protecting the children. It is also a fact that gay couples have children, as a society it behooves us to provide the same protections for those children even if not produced by "nature". Do we deny protections for children born via artificial insemination to heterosexual parents?

I am simply stating a fact. Statistically, homosexuals are far more prone than heterosexuals to promiscuity, infidelity, domestic violence, and serial/short-term relationships. This makes them high risk. If the facts are shocking and seemingly lacking compassion to you, then don't blame me. I am simply the messenger.

Do we, as believers, not attribute much of our moral compass to our faith community? To our involvement with our religion? You have extolled the values of the marital commitment... a sentiment I agree with. Yet for decades we, as a society, told homosexuals that they were an abomination before god. We made them feel unwelcome in our churches. We deny them the opportunity to have publicly recognized, committed relationships. Has it occurred to you that the absence of all these things might possibly factor into the high risk statistics that you claim?

If there is value in the institution of marriage and if we believe that it makes us better spouses/parents then it doesn't make sense to me to deny that value to the LGBT community.

[rockpond]

Generally speaking, the legal definition and societal benefits have remained relatively and essentially unchanged over the last 2 millennium. The exception to that rule has been the last half century--which has seen an eroding and bastardizing of the legal definition, which has caused marriages, and particularly lasting marriages, as well as societal benefits, to declined.

Unchanged? Polygyny & polyandry? Wives as chattel? Arranged marriages? Dowry? Biblical traditions of wives & concubines. Prohibitions against interracial marriage? Common law marraige? Marriage as a religious ceremony and marriage as a legal contract completed with a public official?

Wrong. Unlike with traditional marriages, the cost to societies in legalizing SSM have yet to be demonstrated as out-weighing, let alone equaling the benefits.

True, the cost to societies has yet to be demonstrated. As well as the benefits.

[Hamba Tuhan]

That still doesn't console the gay person who, from their perspective, would have to be changed into a different person to partake of this benefit of the atonement?

The very purpose of the Atonement is to change us into completely different people, altering -- sometimes obliterating -- our most essential and foundational natures. At least that has been my personal experience.

[wenglund]

I'm not sure you can prove that is one "one of the main reasons" government got into the business of marriage. I doubt I can disprove it either so I'm not asking for proof.

Actually, I can site various court cases and legislative records in support of my claim. In fact, that is where I got my claim.

But, it is a fact that the legal benefits provided to married couples go beyond just protecting the children.

So?

It is also a fact that gay couples have children,

Yes and no. Some gay couples have children. And, the vast majority of the children of gay couples came from prior heterosexual marriages. In other words, most of the children of gay couples are a product of a heterosexual divorce. Gay relationships have broken apart traditional families to the dis-benefit of the children. Not good.

However, you are missing the point. Governments have become involved in marriages primarily because of procreation. Biologically, gay couples can't procreate. So, governments do not have the same vested interest in SSM as they do with traditional marriages.

...as a society it behooves us to provide the same protections for those children even if not produced by "nature". Do we deny protections for children born via artificial insemination to heterosexual parents?

I have no problem with societies protecting children with non-biological parents. In fact, I encourage it. However, your point is a child protection issue, not a marital issue. Please don't confuse the two.

Do we, as believers, not attribute much of our moral compass to our faith community? To our involvement with our religion? You have extolled the values of the marital commitment... a sentiment I agree with. Yet for decades we, as a society, told homosexuals that they were an abomination before god. We made them feel unwelcome in our churches. We deny them the opportunity to have publicly recognized, committed relationships. Has it occurred to you that the absence of all these things might possibly factor into the high risk statistics that you claim?

Yes, I have consider it to be a possible factor, but my research suggests that it is not. One would expect the risk factors to decline with the increase in societal acceptance of homosexuality, whereas statistically they haven't declined, and have even in some respects increased. This suggest to me that the risk factor is a product of immoral and risky thinking and behavior. One cannot rationally expect to get sweet fruit from a bitter tree by merely calling the bitter tree sweet.

If there is value in the institution of marriage and if we believe that it makes us better spouses/parents then it doesn't make sense to me to deny that value to the LGBT community.

Wrong. If the value of the institution of marriage is a function of the procreative and heterosexual nature of the marriage, then it makes no sense to offer it to the LGBT community. Doing so merely makes a mockery of the institution of marriage and robs it somewhat of its value.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-