Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[cdowis]

Giving unpopular minorities equal rights and Equal Protection is hardly giving them a "special privilege".

Please be specific on what equal rights are being denied. These "unpopular minorities" have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

"Special privilege" means to give them rights targeted to that group -- e.g. prayer in schools would be a right specific to the religious community. How does having a prayer in school infringe on your right to free speech?

Edited May 22, 2013 by cdowis

[wenglund]

I've pointed this out elsewhere but there is quite a bit of irony in the argument that we don't want to let gays participate in the monogamous commitment of marriage because they are too promiscuous.

It would be ironic were that an argument I or others here have made. It isn't, Rather, you invented it out of straw.

It is my feeling that it will take many decades to undo the damage caused to the homosexual community by pushing them to the fringes of society for so long. I'm not suggesting that they bear no responsibility, just suggesting that we ought to accept that we may have caused some of it.

My marriage has had a wonderful effect on my life -- I'd like everyone who can possibly enjoy such a relationship to have access to it.

Marriages, like your's, consisting of a man and a women, can be very wonderful, and have been legally available for hundreds of years to adults regardless of sexual orientation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDS4]

#1 - Well, you are wrong.

http://www.nypost.co...Jsx1ETrshtKC7nO

You can make a legally binding contract between a human and an animal ... one that involves the expenditure of more money than most people will make in a lifetime. How is it that our legal system can manage that? But, if a man falls for a brick ... Wilson from Cast Away, why would we deny him the love of his life?

leaving money to a dog, or an organization, does not legally obligate that animal or organization in any way. marriage gives one rights and responsibilities. this is why we have age restrictions to marry, but not to be an heir or beneficiary of insurance. you're not even close to proving your point.

#2 - Allowing someone with a GENETIC - i.e. an IMMUTABLE condition is something I have written about plainly in this thread. To deny it, would be to commit discrimination based on the legal standards of the issue. Black skin of sickle cell ... they have a basis is something that we cannot change. They are immutable, beyond control. Now, this is what homosexuals are claiming is true of ... just homosexuality. Not pedophilia, not necrophilia, not adultery, not promiscuity ... just heterosexuality and homosexuality apparently ... but nothing else. For which they produce exactly ZERO evidence.

We are talking about the rationale to deny marriage between close relatives. Deformed kids is the big reason, but I point out that we don't deny marriage to others who likely will produce deformed kids. We still deny marriage between near relatives even if the woman is beyond child bearing age. Kids with deformitiies are no longer an issue. It simply boils down to society imposing morals on others.

#3 - Lets once again talk about the Regrenus study. This is one more example of the smear tactics that have lead me to be inexorably against the homosexual community on this one. I am glad that you took a random smattering of the hyperbolistic squeal over anyone who DARES to publish anything that went against the homosexual agenda. Here is the bottom line - again:

http://theaquilarepo...egneruss-study/

The methodology was sound. Texas University took no action to censure or discipline Regnerus. None. Why? Because the evidence that was laid into the accusations were found to be without merit. So either there is no merit to the claim, or ... there is a vast conspiracy of anti-gay hate that allows homosexuals to live in the open, to be highly educated, hold positions in academia and openly demand and get a re-investigation? (Clearly we can see the hatred in oppression evident in the later course there????)

Which of those sound more likely to you, brother?

he himself admitted he was in error. We can let people read our respective links and make up their own mind. The Regnerus study, whether it is valid or not, has nothing to do with SSM. We still allow those who are/would be the worse possible parents to get married and have kids. We allow drug users / dealers to marry. heck, we even allow death row inmates to marry. Are we going to require that all engaged people take a parenting class before they marry? How many straights would be disqualified if they had demographics suggesting that they would be lousy parents?

Or does our government have the ability to set policies that reward certain choices and behavior, because they have a larger and beneficial impact on our society than others? I will submit that we, as a society, need people to defend our values and our country ... not everyone has to ... but we still have a duty to encourage people to defend our nation so that others do not.

Sure, the gov can affer benefits to soldiers as part of their compensation package. No problem. If you want to reward couples based on their beneficial impact, should couples who choose not to have kids or are to old to have kids, be rewarded? Why should those couples, who provide absolutely nothing e rewarded and the gay couple who adopt older or drug addicted babies get nothing when the latter are doing a LOT more societal good than the former?

[LDS4]

You are certainly well aware of the concern I have about SSM - that when it becomes the law of the land, there is a clear possibility that groups such as Affirmation will sue the church to perform gay sealings in the temple. If you look at their mission statement, you can't help but see that coming. So when you talk about criticizing and condemning an entire class of people, when it is only a small percentage of that class of people who want SSM, you misrepresent my concerns.

This is laughable. There would be a greater chance of success for women to sue for the priesthood. The courts would laugh at this. even if you found some whacky judge, the Church, as well as other churches, would tie this up in court for years. in the mean time, there would be a constitutional amendment written up specifically allowing churches to marry whom they wish written up. it would pass so fast and no politician would dare oppose it. Even a lot of gays would back it. Even if that failed, the Church would simply disallow sealers to perform legally binding ceremonies. this would deny those suing a reason to involve the court. Sealings would then be 100% religious in nature and outside the bounds of governmental interference.

Sorry, but the sky is not falling.

[cdowis]

This is laughable.

Decades ago the concept of SSM was equally implausible.

It is simply a matter of using tax laws. The government could construct tax laws unfavorable to the church.

The temple could lose it tax exempt status if the church refused to do SSM. Over the decades this could be extended to all church property. California is not shy about passing such laws for social engineering, as it is doing with the BSA.

Edited May 22, 2013 by cdowis

[gree0232]

leaving money to a dog, or an organization, does not legally obligate that animal or organization in any way. marriage gives one rights and responsibilities. this is why we have age restrictions to marry, but not to be an heir or beneficiary of insurance. you're not even close to proving your point.

Amazing. YOUR point was that you cannot be legally obligated or form a contract with an animal. Yes, you can.

Now we have an excuse, because ... why exactly? Is this more about pride than objective facts and analysis? I believe THAT would be the point.

We are talking about the rationale to deny marriage between close relatives. Deformed kids is the big reason, but I point out that we don't deny marriage to others who likely will produce deformed kids. We still deny marriage between near relatives even if the woman is beyond child bearing age. Kids with deformitiies are no longer an issue. It simply boils down to society imposing morals on others.

We were talking about moral relativism and licking and choosing random standards to deny one thing and accept another based on personal rationalization.

And no, in Georgia, for example, you can marry a close relative, the state just has to caution you about the possible effects. Yet here you claim that a state is violating a fundamental right to protect society on one hand, which they have a duty to do to prevent deformed kids, but homosexuality is a protected right ... because no kids are better for society than deformed kids.

I believe we call this creative writing.

he himself admitted he was in error. We can let people read our respective links and make up their own mind. The Regnerus study, whether it is valid or not, has nothing to do with SSM. We still allow those who are/would be the worse possible parents to get married and have kids. We allow drug users / dealers to marry. heck, we even allow death row inmates to marry. Are we going to require that all engaged people take a parenting class before they marry? How many straights would be disqualified if they had demographics suggesting that they would be lousy parents?

I believe you misunderstand how statistics are used when making policy ... the key word is aggregate. The state does remove children from heterosexuals who fail as parents, and simply declaring the Regnerus study irrelevant is exactly the point ... it raises serious issues which you simply wave at hand at. Magically, everything is equal because we have rationalized all concerns away?

Are there any actual facts in your analysis at all?

Sure, the gov can affer benefits to soldiers as part of their compensation package. No problem. If you want to reward couples based on their beneficial impact, should couples who choose not to have kids or are to old to have kids, be rewarded? Why should those couples, who provide absolutely nothing e rewarded and the gay couple who adopt older or drug addicted babies get nothing when the latter are doing a LOT more societal good than the former?

And yet, its a violation of the 14th amendment on one hand, but now its fine ... and now we are tossing about emotional prejoratives like drug addicted children rather than dealing with statistics and aggregates ... we make policy not based on the cumulative expected result on our society by with the eaches and just hope that aggregate magically produces a beneficial result.

I'll ask it again, how is homosexual marriage good for our society? What does our society get out of it? Well, we don't get deformed children (we get none), and drug addicted children can be raised in a socially awkward environment? Well, that explains that?

[rockpond]

Sexual orientation wasn't directly relevant to the point I made and the point I was addressing. What was relevant was sexual relationships (which is why I explicitly mentioned sexual relationships and not orientation). If you can't distinguish between the two, and correctly follow the line of discussion, then this will be a significant impediment to productive conversation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand the difference... that's why I said that orientation doesn't have to be acted on. But, I'm curious... do you see sexual orientation as voluntary or involuntary?

[gree0232]

If I choose to use opium in my basement where there is no danger of others being affected by it and where I will not drive while under its influence, I see no reason for government to ban it.

We call this rationalization. The simple fact of the matter is that your excuse does not pan out, because opium is addictive and has been specifically to undermine entire nation states ... on the basis of that kind petty excuse. Well, you are convinced, having fully rationalizaed your excuse, and every government in the world disagrees with you enough to criminalize opium.

Is there any point in even making your clear rationalized argument?

Everyone pays taxes for things with which the disagree. Hippies don't want to pay for national defense, people with grown kids often don't feel that they should pay taxes for public schools, etc...Gays are being forced to subsidize heterosexuality because their tax dollars are going to pay for tax benefits which are denied them. Taxes are a non-issue in this. It boils down to Equal Protection and basic fairness.

And each one of those things, like the need for a military, has a cogent explainable rationale. Homosexual marriage does not. Except it is apparently as harmless as opium?

Not everyone gets the same tax breaks either brother.

Your assertion implies that ALL gays are promiscuous and that promiscuity should disqualify one from marriage. We allow current/former hookers to marry don't we? We allow others to marry whose activities or demographics are statistically likely to lead to divorce. People marrying young are much more likely to divorce. Should we dissallow a 20 y/o RM and his 18 y/o sweetheart marriage?

Or perhaps we can see WHY they are divorcing and see if there might be a solution to solving that issue? Like say ... our church is doing, with more success than failure?

Not everyone gets the same tax breaks, why again shoudl homosexuals be given the tax break? Because they scream its unfair? So is opium use.

WHat does choice have to do with it? I choose my religion and my political party. Could laws be passed diminishing the rights of some religious or political group simply because they can still retain those rights by simply choosing to be another religion or political party? If they can choose to switch to retain the rights, why is that law wrong?

Sex has effects on society, and you are telling us we should pay to advocate certain sexual choices because ... political parties exist. Is there any logic in that statement whatsoever?

You are clearly emotional about this subject, as are many, but I will remind you, the point is to reduce the emotion and look at it objectively. If homosexuality is such a boon, why is it so terribly difficult to lay out a cogent list of benefits and expected results? As we can for heterosexual marriage? They are equal right, 14th amendment and all, should produce the same result? Clearly they do not.

I have NO problem with gays being given FULL civil rights.

Another statement of faith. Good.

[gree0232]

I can't prove it and you can't prove the opposite.

The church teaches that we are masters of what we do with our own sexuality but the Brethren have said that we don't understand the causes of homosexual orientation and that some will not be free of it in this life.

I believe our gay brothers and lesbian sisters who say that their attractions were part of who they were even before they ever had any type of intimate contact. I have no reason to doubt their sincere statements.

If a homosexual wants to make the commitment to live a celibate life, I honor them for that. In the same way that you and I have committed to live the Word of Wisdom.

But some homosexuals feel that celibacy is not the correct option for them. Some feel that God Himself is telling that them that they should enjoy a loving relationship in this life. Who am I to tell them that they are wrong?

I am going to stop you right there and ask you what exactly you are trying to accomplish? One side has actually made a case.

Thesis: homosexuality is subject to choice.

Support.

a. the human genome has been fully mapped, and there is no gay gene.

b. we have documented, and common cases, of bisexuality and even sexual orientation swaps.

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/20/former-lesbian-turned-christian-tells-the-world-about-the-secret-thoughts-of-an-unlikely-convert/

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/reorienting_sexuality/

http://www.newswithviews.com/psychology/psychology2.htm

Indeed, its so common that the homosexual community coined the term hasbian.

c. Studies conducted that find correlations in populations that could 'cause' homosexuality, have all failed when entirely different correlations are found in a subsequent test population. This indicates that the correlations found are the result of random clumping, not cause and effect.

d. No other sexual behavior is seen as genetic, not pedophilia, not adultery, not necrophilia, etc.

Your case is that it isn't choice ... because you say so.

Is there any point in even pretending that you are trying to make a logical case here? Or is this, as I have said, simply a case of delusional William Wilberforce crusade in which we have turned a sexual choice into the grand campaign to .... save people from the agony of being denied a tax break?

THe real question is how did a discussion about the basics of human sexuality become so emotive that pointing out a chain of reasoning against a total lack thereof is ... in any way difficult?

Might it be, as I stated up front, because this is more like the use of McCarthy's tactics, smearing anyone who disagrees, than it is about actual facts and their relevance?

Again, "I can't change this!," is the calling card of every addict on earth. And with no evidence whatsoever, we are supposed to bury the evidence to the contrary, and accept clear rationalization because ... Abe Lincoln will rise from the dead and pat us on the back? What?

I'd ask you to convince me, but I don't even see an argument to be convinced by ... and THAT is the problem.

[wenglund]

It wasn't via jusdicial fiat. the CA State Supreme Court stated that Prop. 22 violated the CA state constitution. You may disagree with the ruling, but the CSSC has a legal right to interpret the state constitution.

The CSSC has the right, though it would be imprudent, to rule based on judicial fiat. That is what happened when it struck down Prop 8, whether you agree with me or not.

About 18,000 couples got married during that time. They had the exact same rights as straights to marry.

They had the same legal right (which, in principle, is no different that the right to kill deer during hunting season), but not the same fundamental civil right. The fundamental civil right of marriage applies only to traditional marriages.

1 Cor. 10:29 - "...for why is my liberty judged* of another man's conscience?"

(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here is also rendered "to determine" elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties / freedoms are not to be determined, restricted or limited by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others....

What a bazaar isogesis. You have taken Paul's advise against speaking evil of people who are doing things unto the glory of God, and you have twisted it into a general edict against using one's conscience to restrict people's freedoms and liberties. And, ironically, you have ripped this passage from a book filled with "thou shalt nots." It doesn't get much more asinine than that.

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of rules. We may avoid ordering pork when dining with Jews or vegetarians, so as to not cause them offense, but the laws which the Jews observe have no claim on us and our liberty is not to be judged by another law's (man's) conscience. Just as their laws have no power over us, neither do our laws, in a non-theocratic society, hold sway over them. They are free to do as they wish until they decide to join us and adopt our laws. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them, for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

The problem here, is you are mistakenly conflating "LDS law" with the law of the land. They are two different things. By voting our LDS conscience in secular elections, just like everyone else, we aren't imposing LDS laws onto people. Rather, we are civically shaping the law of the land, and the law of the land is what is being imposed on the people. Such is the nature of democracies.

Homosexual couples in CA were treated equally with straights in the same way that Blacks and Whites in the South were treated by government when the government set up "separate but equal" drinking fountains. The government gave both groups the exact same water. The drinking fountains were usually side by side and got the water from the same pipe. Both Blacks and homosexuals were denied access to the same things that Whites/straights were because of bigotry. plain and simple. Civil unions, like separate drinking fountains - both give equal tangible benefits, but both convey a 2nd class status on a disfavored group.

Again, this is a false analogy on several levels. First, by implication, it mistakenly compares an involuntary trait (skin color or race) with a voluntary choice (sexual relationship). Second, it mistakenly compares separate locations (drinking fountains) with separate names (marriage/civil unions). And, third, it falsely assumes that "separate but equal" is necessarily problematic, legally or otherwise. It isn't, particularly in terms of different legal names. As indicated above, we have different legal names for males and females, corporations and partnerships, doctors and nurses, cars and boats, civilian and military, public and private, non-profit and profit, New Yorkers and Washingtonians, Southerners and Northerners, city folk and urbanities, Hispanic and Caucasian, etc, In each of these cases, the separate legal names are constitutionally valid. In fact, I can't think of a single case, with the exception of certain insipid SSM arguments, where giving different legal names to different groups of people or entities were considered unconstitutional.

Denying gays marriage OBJECTIVELY harms them, so the Prop. 8 advocates were indeed imposing harm on them. Allowing SSM in no way imposes OBJECTIVE harm on anyone.

While this doesn't address what I said, no, retaining the traditional legal definition of marriage does not OBJEVTIVELY harm anyone, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. Allowing SSM does have negative consequences, and I will demonstrate what those consequences are when it is time to open the intended thread.

Did getting rid of Whites/Blacks only drinking fountains OBJECTIVELY harm Whites? The sides were not equal - One sought to impose harm and the other sought to prevent it.

Again, comparing the sparate drinking fountains and neighborhoods and schools and theater and bus seatings with separate names, is not only an asinine comparison, it is also repugnant, and trivializes significant racial strife.

We have a number of situations where we have "degrees". We have age limits to marry, get a drivers license, buy beer, buy a rifle/shotgun, buy a handgun, become president, etc...We have speed limits. Some states allow kids to get drivers licenses at a different age than others. Some states allow kids to marry at different ages. There are no objective right/wrong. In these "degree" types of laws, a consensus has to be made by the voters or legislatures. There is nothing wrong with this nor do they violate libertian ideals.

To your way of thinking, is there an objective right/wrong way to legally define "marriage," or is defining that term a matter of "degrees,' and should be left to the consensus of the legislature?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I understand the difference... that's why I said that orientation doesn't have to be acted on. But, I'm curious... do you see sexual orientation as voluntary or involuntary?

I haven't decided one way or the other, in part, because it isn't directly relevant to the SSM issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[awyatt]

I believe we have a moral obligation (one that goes beyond religious affiliation) to protect our children. ... I think only consenting adults can marry. Under our legal system, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts. That answers the pedophilia question.

Actually, it is more complicated than that--much more complicated. A person can enter into a legally binding contract, nationwide, when 18. Marriage ages vary by state, however. In most states you can get married when 18 because you are old enough to enter into a contract--the marriage contract. In many states you can get married at 16 or 17 if parents on both sides give consent. In other words, even though the child cannot enter into the marriage contract legally, he/she can with consent of their guardian. If society changes to the point that (heaven forbid) pedophilia was considered normative, why couldn't guardians give consent on behalf of the minor child, the same that can be done with marriages now?

By the way, it is interesting that in at least one state--Mississippi--you cannot get married at 18, 19, or 20 without parental consent. (Nebraska and Tennessee require parental consent even if you are 18.) You can enter into other contracts, but not the marriage contract. In several states, 16- and 17-year-olds can get married without parental consent if there is a child from the union.

Changes in normative views concerning homosexuality won't necessarily lead to changes in normative views concerning pedophilia. They could, however. The sexual revolution of the late 1960s led to the changes in feelings about homosexuality that we are living through today. (Before the sexual revolution and the resulting changes in sex laws, our current views concerning homosexuality were considered perverse. We now consider ourselves "enlightened" and people from that time "bigoted." Who's to say what views will be in 50 years?)

One thing is sure--there is such a thing as the "law of unintended consequences." To say, definitively, that this or that won't happen or will happen is shortsighted and naive.

-Allen

[rockpond]

I am going to stop you right there and ask you what exactly you are trying to accomplish? One side has actually made a case.

Thesis: homosexuality is subject to choice.

Support.

a. the human genome has been fully mapped, and there is no gay gene.

b. we have documented, and common cases, of bisexuality and even sexual orientation swaps.

http://christiannews...likely-convert/

http://www.mercatorn...ting_sexuality/

http://www.newswithv...psychology2.htm

Indeed, its so common that the homosexual community coined the term hasbian.

c. Studies conducted that find correlations in populations that could 'cause' homosexuality, have all failed when entirely different correlations are found in a subsequent test population. This indicates that the correlations found are the result of random clumping, not cause and effect.

d. No other sexual behavior is seen as genetic, not pedophilia, not adultery, not necrophilia, etc.

Your case is that it isn't choice ... because you say so.

Is there any point in even pretending that you are trying to make a logical case here? Or is this, as I have said, simply a case of delusional William Wilberforce crusade in which we have turned a sexual choice into the grand campaign to .... save people from the agony of being denied a tax break?

THe real question is how did a discussion about the basics of human sexuality become so emotive that pointing out a chain of reasoning against a total lack thereof is ... in any way difficult?

Might it be, as I stated up front, because this is more like the use of McCarthy's tactics, smearing anyone who disagrees, than it is about actual facts and their relevance?

Again, "I can't change this!," is the calling card of every addict on earth. And with no evidence whatsoever, we are supposed to bury the evidence to the contrary, and accept clear rationalization because ... Abe Lincoln will rise from the dead and pat us on the back? What?

I'd ask you to convince me, but I don't even see an argument to be convinced by ... and THAT is the problem.

That's fine. Believe what you want. I have zero interest in engaging in a debate with people who still believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I believe that there are people who choose to act a certain way. And I believe that there are some who land toward the center of the spectrum and can be happy on either side. But I believe that the vast majority of humans do not have any control over their sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

I would like you to visit an fLDS compound. I would like you to see the women reduced to 'sister wives' who are raised typically with less education and empowerment to be sexualized play things for their husbands? Why not talk to the caste outs who are set adrift because, gender being born in roughly 50% its hard to have multiple wives when there is balance, so enjoy finding minor excuses to exile perfectly worthy men, who are cut of from friends, family, and faith, all so some randy old man can have another sexual play thing.

And you think that we should pay YOU money, indeed anyone in our society choosing this lifestyle ... to encourage it! Celebrate it! Let's celebrate the historical exploitation of women - exploitation that continues to this very day in the fLDS community and it the Middle East. Sounds great.

We will not pay you to engage in this behavior ... which is a choice, not something you were BORN with.

Should you choose, more power to you. Join the fLDS church. You will be excommunicated, immediately from this one, you can enjoy the carnal knowledge of your 14 year old wife, and the even greater pleasure of seeing your resulting sons exiled to the wilderness so that your neighbor's boy can have an extra wife ... in your daughter.

Sounds grand doesn't it?

And we have just demonstrated the process of rationalization, excusing one sin by justifying another.

Once again, a terribly convincing argument. We should legalize gay marriage, because the historical and current exploitation and sexual abuse of young women isn't as bad as it seems?

Wonderful. Seren logic at its finest.

For the record, I never said that I wanted to be a polygamist. I don't -- personally, I find it unpalatable.

I also believe that the men in the polygamist compounds should be prosecuted for their crimes against women and children.

But remember, the FLDS/Compound variety of polygamy did not exist before the U.S. Government decided to trample our ancestors' religious freedoms and make polygamy illegal.

Criminalizing polygamy forced those who practice it into hiding. And it's in those hiding places that polygamy has become this dark evil thing.

I believe that when we unnecessarily force people to the fringes of society we get undesirable results. The "compound" polygamists are one case. The promiscuity you've mentioned among some homosexuals is another.

[rockpond]

I said: "I've pointed this out elsewhere but there is quite a bit of irony in the argument that we don't want to let gays participate in the monogamous commitment of marriage because they are too promiscuous."

You responded:

It would be ironic were that an argument I or others here have made. It isn't, Rather, you invented it out of straw.

If that isn't the argument that has been made on this thread, than help me understand why posters here keep bringing up the promiscuity among some homosexuals.

[rockpond]

And if God tell us in scripture that it is a Sin, do you think he would give a personal revelation in the opposite direction? Or might this be a case of rationalization? Manipulation?

What would you tell a young woman who came to you for advice, stating that a man she was attracted to told her he had received a 'personal revelation' that it was OK to engage in sex outside of marriage with her?

"Well, that's OK then!" Really?

I see a lot of scriptural clarity surrounding fornication and adultery (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals). I don't see much in the way of scriptural clarity or modern-day revelation about committed monogamous marriages between two homosexuals. So, I tend to feel that someone's personal revelation would need to guide them.

[rongo]

I see a lot of scriptural clarity surrounding fornication and adultery (for both heterosexuals and homosexuals). I don't see much in the way of scriptural clarity or modern-day revelation about committed monogamous marriages between two homosexuals.

What about the interpretations of presidents of the Church and the governing quorums of the Church about "committed monogamous marriages between two homosexuals?" Do you also not "see much in the way of clarity or modern-day revelation" there?

[rockpond]

What about the interpretations of presidents of the Church and the governing quorums of the Church about "committed monogamous marriages between two homosexuals?" Do you also not "see much in the way of clarity or modern-day revelation" there?

Interpretations of the Brethren are interesting (and I accept them as church policy) but don't qualify as scripture or revelation, as I understand those terms.

[rongo]

Interpretations of the Brethren are interesting (and I accept them as church policy) but don't qualify as scripture or revelation, as I understand those terms.

When you have something that consistent, over a long period of time, doesn't the "witness of results" accrue as cumulative revelation? No, it's not presented to the body of the Church and sustained in Conference assembled, but it becomes the unmistakable, consistent Stimmung of the Church.

It sounds like you hold out hope that more enlightened Brethren years down the road will formally end this and declare that same-sex marriage is chaste and in accordance with eternal laws and doctrines (while, perhaps, acknowleding that unmarried sex between homosexuals is unchaste, just as unmarried sex between heterosexuals is).

Edited May 22, 2013 by rongo

[rockpond]

When you have something that consistent, over a long period of time, doesn't the "witness of results" accrue as cumulative revelation? No, it's not presented to the body of the Church and sustained in Conference assembled, but it becomes the unmistakable, consistent Stimmung of the Church.

It sounds like you hold out hope that more enlightened Brethren years down the road will formally end this and declare that same-sex marriage is chaste and in accordance with eternal laws and doctrines (while, perhaps, acknowleding that unmarried sex between homosexuals is unchaste, just as unmarried sex between heterosexuals is).

I don't see that our doctrine regarding homosexuality has been entirely consistent over the decades. And I'm unfamiliar with the idea that teachings which are consistent for long enough can accrue and become cumulative revelation.

I hold out hope that some of the "we don't know" statements currently found in our teachings about homosexuality will someday be answered with additional revelation. And since celibacy has never been a desired goal for any of God's children, I do pray that if the Lord sees fit, our homosexual brothers and sisters can be allowed to enter into marriages in mortality as well as for the eternities.

[Ahab]

Interpretations of the Brethren are interesting (and I accept them as church policy) but don't qualify as scripture or revelation, as I understand those terms.

Then your understanding of scripture or revelation is wrong.

[wenglund]

One thing is sure--there is such a thing as the "law of unintended consequences."

Correct. And, I plan on examining several of those unintended consequences when it is appropriate to open a new thread on SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 22, 2013 by wenglund

[rongo]

I don't see that our doctrine regarding homosexuality has been entirely consistent over the decades.

Can you give examples of inconsistency? You're not channelling D. Michael Quinn and his claims of Joseph Smith endorsed homosexuality, are you? More likely, you are referring to statements about whether people are born "that way" or not. While that has shifted officially to "we don't know," it still doesn't affect the consistency regarding whether homosexual acts are *ever* appropriate or acceptable within the Church, which would have to be overcome for Church sanction of SSM as valid, appropriate, and acceptable within the Church.

And I'm unfamiliar with the idea that teachings which are consistent for long enough can accrue and become cumulative revelation.

You're not denying that they function as cumulative revelation are you (a separate idea from actually *being* revelation, but functionally close or indistinguishable).

I hold out hope that some of the "we don't know" statements currently found in our teachings about homosexuality will someday be answered with additional revelation.

That would be nice. There are a lot of things "we don't know" that I don't think will be clarified by revelation in mortality. I suspect this is one of them.

And since celibacy has never been a desired goal for any of God's children, I do pray that if the Lord sees fit, our homosexual brothers and sisters can be allowed to enter into marriages in mortality as well as for the eternities.

I see no indication that, "since celibacy has never been a desired goal for any of God's children," eventually SSM will be Church-sanctioned both civilly and in temples for eternity because celibacy isn't good. I think the eternal law of chastity is eternally more important than the truth (as far is it goes) that celibacy is not good. Elder Wickman addressed this in his joint press conference with Elder Oaks on homosexuality and the Church, noting that this is no different for his handicapped daughter who watches couples at the temple longingly, knowing that this will never be for her in this life.

[wenglund]

I said: "I've pointed this out elsewhere but there is quite a bit of irony in the argument that we don't want to let gays participate in the monogamous commitment of marriage because they are too promiscuous."

You responded:

If that isn't the argument that has been made on this thread, than help me understand why posters here keep bringing up the promiscuity among some homosexuals.

I can't speak to why others may have brought it up, but I brought it up, along with a list of other data points, as a way of demonstrating stark differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The context of my statement in which I brought it up made that quite clear.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Can you give examples of inconsistency? You're not channelling D. Michael Quinn and his claims of Joseph Smith endorsed homosexuality, are you? More likely, you are referring to statements about whether people are born "that way" or not. While that has shifted officially to "we don't know," it still doesn't affect the consistency regarding whether homosexual acts are *ever* appropriate or acceptable within the Church, which would have to be overcome for Church sanction of SSM as valid, appropriate, and acceptable within the Church.

I'm referring to what was taught and published back in the 70's & 80's vs now. Specifically regarding "choice", mutability, change, and orientation. I'm also referring to policy changes such as counsel that gays should enter into opposite gender marriages and allowing homosexuals who are open about their orientation to enjoy full fellowship within the church. And then there are also the changes in church politics (ex. their support of Colorado Amendment 2 vs now standing behind anti-discrimination ordinances).

You're not denying that they function as cumulative revelation are you (a separate idea from actually *being* revelation, but functionally close or indistinguishable).

I've never heard of cumulative revelation. Not sure what that is or where the scriptural support for it can be found.

I see no indication that, "since celibacy has never been a desired goal for any of God's children," eventually SSM will be Church-sanctioned both civilly and in temples for eternity because celibacy isn't good.

I didn't mean that because celibacy is not desired *therefore* the church will eventually sanction SSM. I meant that because celibacy isn't desirable, *I* hope that the Lord might see fit to allow SSM. By saying that, I'm not trying to suggest what the Lord should do, just what I personally hope for on behalf of our brothers & sisters who are homosexual.

I think the eternal law of chastity is eternally more important than the truth (as far is it goes) that celibacy is not good. Elder Wickman addressed this in his joint press conference with Elder Oaks on homosexuality and the Church, noting that this is no different for his handicapped daughter who watches couples at the temple longingly, knowing that this will never be for her in this life.

Yep - I understand that. I also see a difference between someone who, because of a health condition, may not be capable of entering a marriage vs. someone who is capable but cannot because we've declared it to be sinful.