Gay Marriage And What It Could Mean The Lds Church.

[Pahoran]

This just in from New Mexico – where civil same-sex marriage is neither officially recognized nor officially prohibited, but antidiscrimination laws are on the books:

I'm interested if people can tell the difference between "religious liberties being taken away" versus "not allowing religion to be used as an excuse to get around antidiscrimination laws."

For what it's worth, I think the New Mexico Supreme Court made the right decision.

Daniel

So you think it's "the right decision" to force a privately owned business entity to perform a service that runs contrary to the owner's religious principles.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that "Gay" ethics are built entirely on the Verruca Salt principle.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[foster]

So you think it's "the right decision" to force a privately owned business entity to perform a service that runs contrary to the owner's religious principles.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that "Gay" ethics are built entirely on the Verruca Salt principle.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Is it ethical renege ones word, while demanding to keep the benefit as though the promise was kept? In this instance, the business owner initially agreed to conditions for legal status, reneges after the status is conferred, then claims persecution for the breaking promise.

[Daniel2]

So you think it's "the right decision" to force a privately owned business entity to perform a service that runs contrary to the owner's religious principles.

No. It's the right decision to force privately-owned business to comply with nondiscrimination laws by providing the same service they provide to everyone else, regardless of religion, race, or sexual orientation. In this case, if "taking photographs of the general public" were against the photographer's religious principles (although I don't believe that's truly the case), they are free to choose a different profession that doesn't require them to take photographs. Business owners do not have the right to religiously discriminate based on any personal-perceived sense of their customers' "worthiness" in order to qualify for receiving a business-related service.

Thank you for demonstrating that "Gay" ethics are built entirely on the Verruca Salt principle.

This isn't an example of "'gay' ethics," it's an example of American ethics. In the USA, we don't tolerate discrimination in business practices.

In today's America, we simply don't tolerate a business owner saying, "We don't serve your kind here." (Be that "kind" Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, atheist, Asian, Black, Straight, Bisexual, Gay, etc.) For a great example of this, I highly recommend the film that just came out in theaters called "The Butler," specifically, the scene in the diner where white diner employees refused to serve black patrons.

I always marvel at some businesses that put up signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I'm not sure there is any such legal right, though I'd love to hear more, if anyone knows the details that describe any such legal right.

Regards,

Daniel

[The Nehor]

So you think it's "the right decision" to force a privately owned business entity to perform a service that runs contrary to the owner's religious principles.

Yes. The right to deny people access to your business is a dangerous precedent. These laws are on the books because of people refusing to serve black people. They too described their refusal to provide services as a kind of conscientious objection.

[thesometimesaint]

So you think it's "the right decision" to force a privately owned business entity to perform a service that runs contrary to the owner's religious principles.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that "Gay" ethics are built entirely on the Verruca Salt principle.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Actually all laws are designed to force people to act contrary to someone's religious principles. Say I believe it is in my religious principles of freeddom to ignore stop signs. Would you really support my religious principle in that case?

[Daniel2]

This just in from NM:

NEW MEXICO: Judge Orders Sante Fe County To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

Things are moving fast in New Mexico:

A New Mexico district judge has ordered the Santa Fe County clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, just two days after a another county clerk in the state decided to start issuing gay marriage licenses. The order issued late Thursday by Judge Sarah Singleton comes in a lawsuit by two Santa Fe men. It represents the first time a New Mexico judge has ruled that gay and lesbian couples can be married, said Rep. Brian Egolf, a lawyer representing the men. The order mandates that Santa Fe County Clerk

Geraldine Salazar issue the marriage licenses or appear in court to tell the judge why that shouldn’t happen.

And down in Dona Ana County, ninety gay couples have already gotten their licenses.

[Daniel2]

Dup... Sorry!

[rockpond]

Deleted.  Sorry, TSS, I misread your post then realized my error. 

[Daniel2]

Dup

[The Nehor]

With this proliferation of new licenses hopefully John Cleese will finally be able to acquire the fish license he so desires.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So you think it's "the right decision" to force a privately owned business entity to perform a service that runs contrary to the owner's religious principles.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that "Gay" ethics are built entirely on the Verruca Salt principle.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

I have always wondered why understanding only flows on direction on this, we are to understand their position and abandon our own. I have lived a long time of this earth, agreeing to disagree is not longer permitted without being disagreeable. Or, are (or our) my beliefs to undefended, because they are losing traction in the court of public opinion? It is true that one day public opinion will bring my beliefs to become moot on this point, but does require to render them moot now and deny my faith and conscience. Even with my own family this issue does not share universal belief, yet we are bound by love and family, no name calling, no fights. I must do what I think is right, my conscience demands it.

[thesometimesaint]

I would hate to see the day went it is no longer permitted to disagree without being disagreeable. We must continue to strive to show proof of our cause by pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned.

[california boy]

My point is the board is not for Gay issues, but apologetics. I have always found you to be kind and understanding of others opinions; why do you seem angry at me, or is my daughter you resent, for being gay, but loving of her faith? "Many" groups were involved in Prop 8, so why the obsession with us, and are we not allowed to be involved in this issue we disagree with, we are American's and people who feel we must follow our moral convictions. We believe in a God who will one day judge us on how we act on those convictions. Don't hate me for doing and saying what I think is right, I assure you I don't hate you and have compassion for how you feel others, or Mormons have wronged you. I "must" follow my conscience and the God whom I worship. I know it may hurt, but God instituted marriage, fist thing he ever did after creation, if this was his most important priority, I should at least lend my voice to the debate or do you wish me to stop being who I am. You would not approve of me asking this of you?

Sorry I didn't answer your post earlier.  I have been away on vacation.  Had a great time.  I am not sure where you got the idea that I "hate" you or resent anything about your daughter.  I certainly apologize if I have said something that left you with that impression.  Like your daughterI am also gay but still love my faith even though I can not be a part of it. So I certainly see no issue with the course your daughter has taken.  I have always stated that the church is a wonderful institution that many have found faith and goodness in.  Like you, I encourage my children to continue their activity in the church.  And of course you must follow your conscience and the God whom you worship.  I certainly would never even hint that you should not. 

 

My only comment was shock that you didn't understand why the passing of Prop 8 is so closely tied to the Mormon church.  For heavens sake, the church members provided over 50% of the funding and 70% of the man hours.  This is a church that is about 3% of the population of California.  To pretend that the church had a similar part as any other church is a gross distortion of what actually occurred.  Passing Prop 8 took away the right for gays to marry.  To not understand why the gay population resented the church for it's contribution to its passage is, well, unbelievable to me.  While the church has made great strides in trying to heal those wounds within the gay community, I don't think those wounds will heal easily.   Fortunately the courts have stepped in and asserted that some rights can not be voted upon by the majority.  That is all I am stating. And that reality has nothing to do with you personally or your relationship with your daughter.  I certainly wish you both well.

[EllenMaksoud]

Hear, hear!!! Once civil gay marriage is legalized, the US government will force the LDS church to marry same-sex couples in it's temples, just like once civil interracial marriage was legalized, the US government forced the LDS church to marry interracial couples in its temples--and just like the US government forces the LDS church to marry interfaith couples in its temples, given that civil interfaith marriage is also legal!!

I mean, we ALL know that the American government and religion operate EXACTLY like how the British government and The Church of England relate... It's not like the US government are indistinguishable, when it comes to religious freedoms, or anything--otherwise, the original colonies would have probably rebelled, and we'd have a totally different constitution or something. (Btw, has anyone heard how LDS temples in all the European countries are being FORCED to marry same-sex couples?!?! Especially the Stockholm temple... which we all know is going to Outer Darkness in a handbag!)

Daniel

According to my Welsh Friend, the Queen is fairly hands off in respect to the church. She does not object to SSM, but says she has no intention of influencing the vote. It is not as yet a "done deal". I've just been talking to him as he reads the posts. He is not Mormon and very hands off on the issue.

 

Of note, in the Scandinavian countries, where one poster voiced his concern about it happening there, one should remember that those countries have done very extensive research including examining the brains of cadavers, to try to determine the causation of so called sexual deviancy. These days, America and the UK do relatively little research into such matters. Reports on said research are relatively easy to find and provide interesting reading if one wishes to sit there with the report on one hand and a high level dictionary in the other.

 

Rational discussion, based upon this research is as yet impossible in America. However faced with good solid research and earnest prayer, I think the Mormons will be the first to address the issues compassionately should the need arise. My old denomination will have to be burned at the stake first.

 

As yet, I completely support the church in its present position.

[slamarwi]

At some point in the not too-distant future, we will all have the opportunity to really stand up (or not) for the precepts of the gospel. Will you choose to follow the commandments or will the popular, politically correct precepts of men become your religion? Do you believe the proclamation to the world on the family is the word of God or was it simply a nicety from a group of old white men from an outdated time and place? Do you really have a testimony of modern day prophets or just hoping that the current head of the church will somehow get the Lord to bend or change the rules to suit your desires? It's very possible that the next prophet might be considerably less tolerant of this topic than his predecessor. 

 

We all have gay members in our families but that does not excuse us from following the gospel as it has been explained since the beginning of Adam's dispensation. I am proud the church stood up and supported prop. 8. It was, and is, the right thing to do. 

 

Please understand the end game for Homosexuality. It's aim is to become the norm, just like heterosexuality has been in the past. The belief is that marriage will accomplish this goal. This is the fulfillment of: evil being called good, and good evil. ( Isaiah 5:20)

 

In the US, pressure will certainly be placed upon the church to perform SSM's in our Temples. This can only be avoided by uncoupling the church from its corporation status and eliminating the charitable contribution section from your taxes. As long as we are beholden to the federal government there is leverage for SSM equality.

 

If history truly repeats itself, homosexuality may indeed become more prevalent than it's counterpart. Are you prepared to stand?

[rockpond]

At some point in the not too-distant future, we will all have the opportunity to really stand up (or not) for the precepts of the gospel. Will you choose to follow the commandments or will the popular, politically correct precepts of men become your religion? Do you believe the proclamation to the world on the family is the word of God or was it simply a nicety from a group of old white men from an outdated time and place? Do you really have a testimony of modern day prophets or just hoping that the current head of the church will somehow get the Lord to bend or change the rules to suit your desires? It's very possible that the next prophet might be considerably less tolerant of this topic than his predecessor. 

 

We all have gay members in our families but that does not excuse us from following the gospel as it has been explained since the beginning of Adam's dispensation. I am proud the church stood up and supported prop. 8. It was, and is, the right thing to do. 

 

Please understand the end game for Homosexuality. It's aim is to become the norm, just like heterosexuality has been in the past. The belief is that marriage will accomplish this goal. This is the fulfillment of: evil being called good, and good evil. ( Isaiah 5:20)

 

In the US, pressure will certainly be placed upon the church to perform SSM's in our Temples. This can only be avoided by uncoupling the church from its corporation status and eliminating the charitable contribution section from your taxes. As long as we are beholden to the federal government there is leverage for SSM equality.

 

If history truly repeats itself, homosexuality may indeed become more prevalent than it's counterpart. Are you prepared to stand?

 

Christ didn't teach us to follow commandments (keep them, yes, but "follow"?), or proclamations, or the prophet.  We are to follow Christ.

 

Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation.  It has no "end game".

 

Maybe what is actually "good being called evil" is when we condemn loving, committed homosexual relationships.  And when we "forbid to marry".

 

History & science do not support the idea that homosexuality could become more prevalent than heterosexuality.  Heterosexual unions produce homosexual offspring in some small percentage.  They seem to always have done so and likely always will.

 

And as for the fear tactic that we will someday be forced to perform same gender marriages in our temples, against our will... Consider that we have kept couples from being married in our temples for over a century and a half using our own criteria:  We keep out non-members.  We kept out blacks.  We kept out interracial couples.  We keep out people who drink a cup of coffee with breakfast or a glass of wine with dinner.  We keep out people who won't proclaim a belief in the restoration.  We can even take away your ability to go if you don't wear the right kind of underwear.

 

I am not worried about our ability to keep gay couples from getting sealed in our temples.

 

Until OD3...

[Scott Lloyd]

Christ didn't teach us to follow commandments (keep them, yes, but "follow"?), or proclamations, or the prophet.  We are to follow Christ.

 

Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation.  It has no "end game".

 

Maybe what is actually "good being called evil" is when we condemn loving, committed homosexual relationships.  And when we "forbid to marry".

 

History & science do not support the idea that homosexuality could become more prevalent than heterosexuality.  Heterosexual unions produce homosexual offspring in some small percentage.  They seem to always have done so and likely always will.

 

And as for the fear tactic that we will someday be forced to perform same gender marriages in our temples, against our will... Consider that we have kept couples from being married in our temples for over a century and a half using our own criteria:  We keep out non-members.  We kept out blacks.  We kept out interracial couples.  We keep out people who drink a cup of coffee with breakfast or a glass of wine with dinner.  We keep out people who won't proclaim a belief in the restoration.  We can even take away your ability to go if you don't wear the right kind of underwear.

 

I am not worried about our ability to keep gay couples from getting sealed in our temples.

 

Until OD3...

I'm predicting OD3 will be the canonization of "The Family, a Proclamation to the World."

 

Which explicitly contradicts what rockpond hopes will be OD3.

 

Of the two, I believe my prediction is eminently more likely to come true than rockpond's.

[CV75]

Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation.  It has no "end game".

I think sexuality as an innate orientation is highly debatable. That is why it is better to focus on behavior. I think the behavior that can be considered an "end game" is the co-opting of the term for political lobbying purposes.

[rockpond]

I'm predicting OD3 will be the canonization of "The Family, a Proclamation to the World."

Which explicitly contradicts what rockpond hopes will be OD3.

Of the two, I believe my prediction is eminently more likely to come true than rockpond's.

OD1 & OD2 were revelations of new doctrine for the church. The Proclamation is not a revelation. It's one of a number of proclamations, none of which have been canonized.

On a more practical level, it seems unlikely that the Brethren would want to canonize the proclamation when the issue of same gender relationships is having such a divisive effect on the church right now.

[rockpond]

I think sexuality as an innate orientation is highly debatable. That is why it is better to focus on behavior. I think the behavior that can be considered an "end game" is the co-opting of the term for political lobbying purposes.

Yes, there are a few of you still debating it.

[Scott Lloyd]

OD1 & OD2 were revelations of new doctrine for the church. The Proclamation is not a revelation. It's one of a number of proclamations, none of which have been canonized.

In my own adulthood, I've seen long-existing revelation canonized as scripture, namely Sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Both had been around for a long time, Section 137 since 1836 and Section 138 since 1918.

 

This is not at all unprecedented.

 

It's true that none of the proclamations have yet been canonized (with the exception of OD1 and OD2, of course), but I know of nothing to preclude it.

 

 

On a more practical level, it seems unlikely that the Brethren would want to canonize the proclamation when the issue of same gender relationships is having such a divisive effect on the church right now.

 

If there is continued and increased agitation for the Church to redefine marriage and to reverse 183 years of accepted belief and declare that forbidden and sinful behavior is now OK, that might be the very thing to force the issue and cause the Lord to reveal to the Brethren that this already-inspired proclamation should now become part of the canon.

 

It would be analogous to Abraham Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation at the height of the Civil War.

[rockpond]

In my own adulthood, I've seen long-existing revelation canonized as scripture, namely Sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Both had been around for a long time, Section 137 since 1836 and Section 138 since 1918.

This is not at all unprecedented.

It's true that none of the proclamations have yet been canonized (with the exception of OD1 and OD2, of course), but I know of nothing to preclude it.

If there is continued and increased agitation for the Church to redefine marriage and to reverse 183 years of accepted belief and declare that forbidden and sinful behavior is now OK, that might be the very thing to force the issue and cause the Lord to reveal to the Brethren that this already-inspired proclamation should now become part of the canon.

It would be analogous to Abraham Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation at the height of the Civil War.

Sections 137 & 138 were revelations given to the prophet again differentiating them from the Proclamation on the Family.

The church need not define or redefine marriage. The Lord has not spoken to us specifically as to whether or not He affirms committed homosexual unions.

Canonizing the Proclamation wouldn't really clear up the matter as it only speaks to heterosexual marriage. However, it's lack of addressing homosexuality could cause further divisiveness if canonized.

Interesting that you use Lincoln as a comparison since slavery was defended using the Bible just as gay marriage is condemned with just a few similarly "cherry picked" verses.

[CV75]

Yes, there are a few of you still debating it.

That's a non-response if I ever saw one!

[rockpond]

That's a non-response if I ever saw one!

 

I was agreeing with you.  

 

Or did you want me to respond to your political lobbying comment?  Cause I didn't really even see what your point was on that.  But I think you and I have already discussed this topic extensively.

[CV75]

I was agreeing with you.  

 

Or did you want me to respond to your political lobbying comment?  Cause I didn't really even see what your point was on that.  But I think you and I have already discussed this topic extensively.

Only on a very narrow point.

 

But since you agree that homosexuality as an inborn trait is a highly debatable, point you can see that homosexual behaviors  (and even what might constitute "homosexual") can have their root in any number of causes and motives, and so the assertion that it is always inborn becomes irrelevant.

 

Now when it comes to “end games,” where for political purposes a label is used to draw in a wide net of supporters, the term “homosexual” is being co-opted to manipulate a much larger group into thinking that it is innate, and making choices and taking action on that basis.

 

When it comes to same-sex “marriage” within the LDS Church, this incorrect view is being used to lobby people away from the marriage covenant as it stands, in demand for a more “accommodating” covenant to press God's servants to arrange by way of revelation. But if we can’t pinpoint the source of sexual orientation and behavior, then we cannot use that as the basis for challenging or expanding the covenant on basis of gender.

 

That is the narrow point of discussion, which begins with D&C 132 and ties in with many other eternal principles.