Gay Marriage And What It Could Mean The Lds Church.

[rockpond]

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.

 

I only agreed that some people were still debating whether homosexuality is innate.  You know that I don't think it's debatable.

 

I don't think that the term is being co-opted to make people think that it is innate... I believe people are coming to that conclusion naturally.  And as church members come to the realization that their children and other loved ones didn't choose their sexual orientation and that it isn't a "defect" then many naturally hope for further revelation regarding the place of those loved ones in God's plan of happiness.

[foster]

"Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions,..."

In my opinion, there isn't a credible threat to bona fide Churches in the United States being forced to perform ssm.

[CV75]

I only agreed that some people were still debating whether homosexuality is innate.  You know that I don't think it's debatable.

 

I don't think that the term is being co-opted to make people think that it is innate... I believe people are coming to that conclusion naturally.  And as church members come to the realization that their children and other loved ones didn't choose their sexual orientation and that it isn't a "defect" then many naturally hope for further revelation regarding the place of those loved ones in God's plan of happiness.

Well, saying it is not debatable indicates that you are in an "end game." Generalizing church members as not seeing it your way puts you in the position of using the term "homosexual" to draw an artificial line of demarcation , when others use it in much more nuanced ways, knowing that self-identity, motives, behavior are not necessarily integrated, and especially not by a label.

 

I refer you to post #102:

 

"The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters." http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

 

Elsewhere on the web page, the term "homosexual" on refers to behavior. "Gay" and "lesbian" refer to those who identify as having same-sex attraction enough to call themselves such, and not only to those who are engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

"Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions..." only means that we do not always choose our attractions (typically thosethings which can be used to tempt us), or that we understand how our attractions actually came about. It is acknowledgement that the attraction is not exclusively inborn and may arise from other complex realities.

 

Even "inborn" traits have causes completely unrelated to the eternal character of the spirit, which has teh divine capacity to override all obstacles to happiness.

[rockpond]

Well, saying it is not debatable indicates that you are in an "end game." Generalizing church members as not seeing it your way puts you in the position of using the term "homosexual" to draw an artificial line of demarcation , when others use it in much more nunced ways, knowing that self-identity, motives, behavior are not necessarily integrated, and especially not by a label.

 

I think I can accept that I'm in an "end game" although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.  But, yeah, I'm pretty much done with the debate on whether homosexuality is innate and/or changeable.  If that puts me in an "end game", so be it.

 

But, I'm not sure how I'm drawing an "artificial line of demarcation".  I'm quite capable of nuance and recognize that we use the label for ease of communication, especially in a discussion board like this.

[thesometimesaint]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/19/2650521/pope-francis-catholic-church/

 

I tend to agree.

[CV75]

But, I'm not sure how I'm drawing an "artificial line of demarcation".

By promoting "homosexual" as an inborn condition that warrants same-sex sealings in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, you are ignoring the many cultural and social aspects (inlcuding the challenges of "fitting in" with other cultures) of people who identify as gay and lesbian, and relegating them to sexually-impulsed choices, which dehumanizes them. And if same-sex "marriage" is a cultural and social matter, expecting it to be revealed to be a spiritual covenant is kind of ridiculous.

[CV75]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/19/2650521/pope-francis-catholic-church/

 

I tend to agree.

Excellent case in point!

 

“It is not necessary to talk about these [cultural and social] issues all the time,” Pope Francis told an Italian outlet. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church [spiritual covenants] are not all equivalent.”

 

U.S. Catholic Bishops have been criticized for focusing almost exclusively on social issues — like advocating against marriage equality and fighting against Obamacare’s birth control benefit — at the expense of the Church’s other teachings on social justice issues.

[rockpond]

By promoting "homosexual" as an inborn condition that warrants same-sex sealings in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, you are ignoring the many cultural and social aspects (inlcuding the challenges of "fitting in" with other cultures) of people who identify as gay and lesbian, and relegating them to sexually-impulsed choices, which dehumanizes them. And if same-sex "marriage" is a cultural and social matter, expecting it to be revealed to be a spiritual covenant is kind of ridiculous.

 

I am not relegating gay & lesbian individuals to sexually-impulsed choices.  As I've said over and over, one's sexual orientation goes far beyond just sex.  I didn't marry my wife just because she had the right parts.  It goes much deeper than that.    And if there is a gay or lesbian individual who wants to live a celibate life because they believe that is what God asks of them, I honor them for that decision.  Likewise if there is a gay or lesbian person who feels that they can make a heterosexual marriage work, I pray that they will have all the happiness that they deserve.  And if a gay or lesbian latter-day saint feels that a committed loving homosexual marriage in this life is what they feel spiritually guided to do, then I believe they should.  I will continue to hope and pray that if it is the Lord's will, He will reveal the possibility for them to be sealed eternally in that relationship.

 

I'm not sure where you got the impression from me regarding your last sentence.  I do not see same gender marriage (or ANY marriage) as a purely social/cultural matter.

[CV75]

I am not relegating gay & lesbian individuals to sexually-impulsed choices.  As I've said over and over, one's sexual orientation goes far beyond just sex.  I didn't marry my wife just because she had the right parts.  It goes much deeper than that.    And if there is a gay or lesbian individual who wants to live a celibate life because they believe that is what God asks of them, I honor them for that decision.  Likewise if there is a gay or lesbian person who feels that they can make a heterosexual marriage work, I pray that they will have all the happiness that they deserve.  And if a gay or lesbian latter-day saint feels that a committed loving homosexual marriage in this life is what they feel spiritually guided to do, then I believe they should.  I will continue to hope and pray that if it is the Lord's will, He will reveal the possibility for them to be sealed eternally in that relationship.

But the assertion that sexual orientation is an integral part of the spirit character that is transposed into the mortal soul relegates it to an inborn characteristic that ignores all the other complex factors that come together to contribute to orientation. While a spirit can have gender (just as it continues to have as an infant), it cannot possess or express sexual orientation any more than an infant does. This is because, while we don’t know all the factors for each individual case, we do know a spirit has even less of a capacity (a body, a brain or environmental influences and experiences with which to construct a sexual orientation) than an infant does.

 

Of course people follow whatever their net spiritual inclinations may be, but those inclinations won’t dictate that the Lord will accommodate them or define how He will accommodate them, and for this reason they cannot serve as indicators of what the Lord will do.

I'm not sure where you got the impression from me regarding your last sentence.  I do not see same gender marriage (or ANY marriage) as a purely social/cultural matter.

By acknowledging that marriage is even in part a cultural and social matter, expecting the new and everlasting covenant (eternal male-female marriage) to reflect the marriage mores du jour is just as ridiculous as expecting it to drive those mores in a world that rejects it.

[rockpond]

But the assertion that sexual orientation is an integral part of the spirit character that is transposed into the mortal soul relegates it to an inborn characteristic that ignores all the other complex factors that come together to contribute to orientation. While a spirit can have gender (just as it continues to have as an infant), it cannot possess or express sexual orientation any more than an infant does. This is because, while we don’t know all the factors for each individual case, we do know a spirit has even less of a capacity (a body, a brain or environmental influences and experiences with which to construct a sexual orientation) than an infant does.

 

Of course people follow whatever their net spiritual inclinations may be, but those inclinations won’t dictate that the Lord will accommodate them or define how He will accommodate them, and for this reason they cannot serve as indicators of what the Lord will do.

 

By acknowledging that marriage is even in part a cultural and social matter, expecting the new and everlasting covenant (eternal male-female marriage) to reflect the marriage mores du jour is just as ridiculous as expecting it to drive those mores in a world that rejects it.

 

I understand your view that we all somehow move beyond orientation in the next life (at least I think I do, correct me if I'm wrong).  I just disagree with it.  I think that our orientation is, in part, what drives us to romantically & intimately (not a euphemism for sex) love someone.  And I see it carrying over into the next life if we are going to stay in our eternal unions.

 

And as you know, I believe in a God who affirms and blesses loving committed unions regardless of gender.  I don't expect our inclinations to dictate anything to the Lord but I see Him prioritizing love and compassion above all.

 

I don't really care about the "mores du jour".  But marriage is a cultural and social matter as well as a spiritual one.  Joseph Smith saw it that way.  I do as well.  I definitely see the sealing as the preeminent commitment I made to my wife (and God) but our cultural/social/legal commitment to one another isn't insignificant.

[CV75]

I understand your view that we all somehow move beyond orientation in the next life (at least I think I do, correct me if I'm wrong).  I just disagree with it.  I think that our orientation is, in part, what drives us to romantically & intimately (not a euphemism for sex) love someone.  And I see it carrying over into the next life if we are going to stay in our eternal unions.

 

And as you know, I believe in a God who affirms and blesses loving committed unions regardless of gender.  I don't expect our inclinations to dictate anything to the Lord but I see Him prioritizing love and compassion above all.

 

I don't really care about the "mores du jour".  But marriage is a cultural and social matter as well as a spiritual one.  Joseph Smith saw it that way.  I do as well.  I definitely see the sealing as the preeminent commitment I made to my wife (and God) but our cultural/social/legal commitment to one another isn't insignificant.

I didn’t say “somehow.” And my view is that our orientation becomes more godlike in relation to the covenants that gods keep.

 

Certainly our sexual orientation plays out in our relationships, but we are not bound to our orientation any more than we can pinpoint where it came from. You believe it is as spiritually innate as gender; I don’t think it is quite so simple—as ingrained as orientation can seem, there are too many variables that affect it, and too many gradients of it to be affected, to say that it is as imprinted upon our second estate as gender.

 

There are no teachings as to how sexual orientations drive the pure love of Christ, which is applied freely to all without regard to sex or sexual orientation. Neither are there teachings as to how sexual orientations drive a Zion society. That is because sexual orientations are irrelevant to either. Both the pure love of Christ and Zion find full expression in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Sexual orientation does not when it focuses on fulfillment outside the covenant and becomes a matter of the “self.”

 

However, sexual orientation is the basis for the gay and lesbian culture (which is why it is called that), which places a value on same-sex “marriage.” The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is not about accommodating same-sex “marriage” because a) it is not about accommodating culture and b) sexual orientation is irrelevant to the covenant.

 

I think you are mistaken about the Lord prioritizing love and compassion over all; the Atonement brings all eternal attributes and laws together into a compound in one (justice and mercy, for example).

 

Certainly marriage is a cultural and social matter as well as a spiritual one, but within the context of the revealed covenant, it is the fullest expression the pure love of Christ and Zion. Marriage as a matter of alternative cultural, social and spiritual leanings cannot stake that claim since by definition it is “other-than.”

[rockpond]

I didn’t say “somehow.” And my view is that our orientation becomes more godlike in relation to the covenants that gods keep.

 

Certainly our sexual orientation plays out in our relationships, but we are not bound to our orientation any more than we can pinpoint where it came from. You believe it is as spiritually innate as gender; I don’t think it is quite so simple—as ingrained as orientation can seem, there are too many variables that affect it, and too many gradients of it to be affected, to say that it is as imprinted upon our second estate as gender.

 

There are no teachings as to how sexual orientations drive the pure love of Christ, which is applied freely to all without regard to sex or sexual orientation. Neither are there teachings as to how sexual orientations drive a Zion society. That is because sexual orientations are irrelevant to either. Both the pure love of Christ and Zion find full expression in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Sexual orientation does not when it focuses on fulfillment outside the covenant and becomes a matter of the “self.”

 

However, sexual orientation is the basis for the gay and lesbian culture (which is why it is called that), which places a value on same-sex “marriage.” The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is not about accommodating same-sex “marriage” because a) it is not about accommodating culture and b) sexual orientation is irrelevant to the covenant.

 

I think you are mistaken about the Lord prioritizing love and compassion over all; the Atonement brings all eternal attributes and laws together into a compound in one (justice and mercy, for example).

 

Certainly marriage is a cultural and social matter as well as a spiritual one, but within the context of the revealed covenant, it is the fullest expression the pure love of Christ and Zion. Marriage as a matter of alternative cultural, social and spiritual leanings cannot stake that claim since by definition it is “other-than.”

 

I'm sorry, I don't know how to split up quotes... I used to be able to but it seems that something changed in the way this reply window works.  So I'll reply by paragraph...

 

First paragraph... what are all the variables that you believe affect orientation.

 

Second paragraph... I don't see the pure love of Christ as the same thing as the love that exists between my wife and I.  I try to have the pure love of Christ for many people and hope to be able to be increasingly better at that.  But while I can have the pure love of Christ for many people, there will always be something unique and special between my wife and I.

 

Third & last paragraphs... this is just circular reasoning on your part.  You see the new & everlasting covenant as precluding same gender couples.  This allows you to place gay marriage into an exclusively social/cultural box which then allows you to say that it cannot ever be included in the new & everlasting covenant.  But the gay couples I know see their unions as spiritual and not just cultural.

 

Yes the atonement brings justice and mercy together into one.  But I was referring to Christ's life and ministry and what I see prioritized above all is love and compassion.

[CV75]

I'm sorry, I don't know how to split up quotes... I used to be able to but it seems that something changed in the way this reply window works.  So I'll reply by paragraph...

 

First paragraph... what are all the variables that you believe affect orientation.

 

Second paragraph... I don't see the pure love of Christ as the same thing as the love that exists between my wife and I.  I try to have the pure love of Christ for many people and hope to be able to be increasingly better at that.  But while I can have the pure love of Christ for many people, there will always be something unique and special between my wife and I.

 

Third & last paragraphs... this is just circular reasoning on your part.  You see the new & everlasting covenant as precluding same gender couples.  This allows you to place gay marriage into an exclusively social/cultural box which then allows you to say that it cannot ever be included in the new & everlasting covenant.  But the gay couples I know see their unions as spiritual and not just cultural.

 

Yes the atonement brings justice and mercy together into one.  But I was referring to Christ's life and ministry and what I see prioritized above all is love and compassion.

I think it’s enough to point out that there are mortal variables not found in the pre-existence that contribute to the development of a personality once a spirit comes into this world. I think I’ve posted enough about this. The important thing is that sexual orientation is not relevant to the structure of the LDS marriage covenant, no matter its origin.

 

Yes, the LDS marriage covenant obviously precludes same gender couples. Therefore, the idea of gay “marriage” must arise from some source outside of that teaching and ordinance, which relegates it to a social or cultural sphere, though feel free to use any other descriptor such as emotional, political, economic, alternative, etc. What kind of logical construct and of what value is it to "take a thing of a natural state [e.g. social or cultural] and place it in a state opposite to its nature [eternal]?" Or to take the LDS marriage covenant as it stands and change it to reflect a construct in opposition to what it was?

 

I believe that all relationships are spiritual at some level, but not all spiritual relationships are healthy, and even not all healthy ones are validated by the LDS marriage covenant.I believe that which is both spiritually healthy and validated by covenant constitutes the most "unique and special something" couples in the new and everlasting covenant share.

 

I pointed out that justice and mercy are only an example of two things brought together by the Atonement. Love and compassion are brought together with eternal covenant and law, and so many other opposing principles to create an exalted compound in one.

 

If this is becoming nothing more than a discussion over policy, there is a current thread elsewhere that covers all the same principles about people wanting to change Church policies.

[rockpond]

I think it’s enough to point out that there are mortal variables not found in the pre-existence that contribute to the development of a personality once a spirit comes into this world. I think I’ve posted enough about this. The important thing is that sexual orientation is not relevant to the structure of the LDS marriage covenant, no matter its origin.

Yes, the LDS marriage covenant obviously precludes same gender couples. Therefore, the idea of gay “marriage” must arise from some source outside of that teaching and ordinance, which relegates it to a social or cultural sphere, though feel free to use any other descriptor such as emotional, political, economic, alternative, etc. What kind of logical construct and of what value is it to "take a thing of a natural state [e.g. social or cultural] and place it in a state opposite to its nature [eternal]?" Or to take the LDS marriage covenant as it stands and change it to reflect a construct in opposition to what it was?

I believe that all relationships are spiritual at some level, but not all spiritual relationships are healthy, and even not all healthy ones are validated by the LDS marriage covenant.I believe that which is both spiritually healthy and validated by covenant constitutes the most "unique and special something" couples in the new and everlasting covenant share.

I pointed out that justice and mercy are only an example of two things brought together by the Atonement. Love and compassion are brought together with eternal covenant and law, and so many other opposing principles to create an exalted compound in one.

If this is becoming nothing more than a discussion over policy, there is a current thread elsewhere that covers all the same principles about people wanting to change Church policies.

Again you are using circular logic in saying that our current understanding of the marriage covenant excludes gay marriage. Therefore gay marriage is only social/cultural/political/etc. And because of that it can never be a part of the eternal marriage covenant.

I respect your opinion that sexual orientation is not a part of the LDS marriage covenant but I strongly disagree. It's what drives us to unite with our spouse.

If it helps, I'll explain my belief without using the term orientation...

I believe that we come to this mortal existence, in part, to build these great familial relationships (parents, siblings, spouse, children, posterity). And I believe in a God who honors those loving commitments to one another, and will give opportunity to seal them eternally, regardless of the genders of those involved in a particular union.

[california boy]

NEW JERSEY JUDGE RULES GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL, ORDERS IT TO BEGIN

A New Jersey judge has ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection under the state constitution and ordered them to begin by October 21st.

 

New Jersey would be the 14th state (plus D.C.) with marriage equality.

 

The ruling is likely to be appealed.

 

 AP: "In a summary judgment issued Friday, Judge Mary Jacobson says now that the federal government recognizes gay marriages, not doing so in New Jersey would violate the state constitution."

 

NBC New York:

 

Judge Mary Jacobson granted a summary judgment requested by Garden State Equality, which had claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the federal Defense of Marriage Act meant that same-sex couples in civil unions in New Jersey were being denied equal protection.

 

NJ.com reports:

 

The gay rights groups Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal had argued that after the U.S. Supreme Court extended more than 1,000 tax and inheritance benefits to same-sex couples in June, New Jersey was left behind with second-class civil unions.

 

Jacobson, the head judge in Mercer County, agreed.

 

"The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts," she wrote.

 

For example, the judge said, "civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy."

 

Jacobson was asked to square the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June striking down the Defense of Marriage Act with New Jersey's own legal precedents.

 

Said Lambda Legal Deputy Legal Director Hayley Gorenberg:

 

The Supreme Court opened the door to federal benefits, and now the Court in New Jersey has ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. This news is thrilling. We argued that limiting lesbians and gay men to civil union is unfair and unconstitutional, and now the Court has agreed. The end of DOMA made the freedom to marry even more urgent than before because the state stood between these families and a host of federal protections, benefits, rights and responsibilities. With this ruling, our clients and all of New Jersey’s same-sex couples are at the threshold of the freedom to marry.

 

Towleroad's Jacob Combs wrote about Jacobson's hearings in the case back in August.

 

A New Jersey state court judge in Trenton today expressed skepticism towards state officials' claims in defense of New Jersey's decision to offer civil unions but not equal marriage rights to same-sex couples, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

In questions posed to lawyers from both sides, however, Judge Mary Jacobson (pictured below) showed hesitation towards moving too fast on a constitutional issue of such importance, asking for further briefing and telling lawyers not to expect a ruling until next month at the earliest.

 

"Federalism is messy," the judge said matter-of-factly early on during the proceedings, succinctly summing up the complexities present in the legal challenge, known as Garden State Equality v. Dow and brought by Lambda Legal, an LGBT legal advocacy group.

[california boy]

Another state chooses equality for it's American Citizens. It is clear the courts are having a difficult time not ruling for marriage equality when there is no complelling legal argument against it.  

 

New Jersey begins gay marriage

 

On Friday, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that would recognize gay nuptials in the state beginning Oct. 21, a start date Gov. Chris Christie ® had hoped to delay.

"The state has advanced a number of arguments, but none of them overcome this reality: Same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said in the court opinion. "The harm to them is real, not abstract or speculative."

 

 

 

Gov. Christie realizes his administration has no real case to object to court rulings.

 

Gov. Chris Christie has dropped his appeal to legalized same-sex marriages in New Jersey.

In an email, the governor's office says it submitted a formal withdrawal to the state Supreme Court Monday morning.

 

[Storm Rider]

I would think it will be law in every state within a relatively short time.

[cdowis]

And as you know, I believe in a God who affirms and blesses loving committed unions regardless of gender.  I don't expect our inclinations to dictate anything to the Lord but I see Him prioritizing love and compassion above all.

 

 

As long as you realize that the Bible disagrees with you.  The Lord places morality as a priority as well.

[rockpond]

As long as you realize that the Bible disagrees with you.  The Lord places morality as a priority as well.

 

I think that we've been through this before but the Bible does not say anything about loving committed same gender relationships.  And I don't seem them as being immoral (in the generic sense of the word, not in the LDS Law of Chastity sense).

[Scott Lloyd]

 [deleted because of revised version posted later]

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that we've been through this before but the Bible does not say anything about loving committed same gender relationships.  And I don't seem them as being immoral (in the generic sense of the word, not in the LDS Law of Chastity sense).

Interesting how you distinguish between the Lord's law and morality in general.

 

I might be tempted to apply the somewhat overused term cognitive dissonance -- except that you don't seem to exhibit any "discomfort [in] ... simultaneously holding two ... conflicting cognitions."

[Scott Lloyd]

I would think it will be law in every state within a relatively short time.

I don't expect to see it in Utah within my lifetime.

 

Of course, the term "relatively short time" is, um, relative, and I don't know how you define it.

[rockpond]

Interesting how you distinguish between the Lord's law and morality in general.

 

I might be tempted to apply the somewhat overused term cognitive dissonance -- except that you don't seem to exhibit any "discomfort [in] ... simultaneously holding two ... conflicting cognitions."

 

They aren't conflicting for me.

 

I'm not aware of the Law of Chastity being the "Lord's law".  It's a term we use in the church that, I would bet, we can't even agree on an exact definition were we to have that discussion on this board (though I could be wrong because I think it is clearly & repeatedly defined in one particular place).

 

For me to consider something to be "moral" I would certainly need to believe it to be something that would receive the approbation of the Lord.

[rockpond]

I don't expect to see it in Utah within my lifetime.

 

Of course, the term "relatively short time" is, um, relative, and I don't know how you define it.

 

Wanna disclose your age?  

 

I'm 43 and I expect marriage equality for gay couples in every state within my lifetime.

[Scott Lloyd]

They aren't conflicting for me.

 

I'm not aware of the Law of Chastity being the "Lord's law".  It's a term we use in the church that, I would bet, we can't even agree on an exact definition were we to have that discussion on this board (though I could be wrong because I think it is clearly & repeatedly defined in one particular place).

 

For me to consider something to be "moral" I would certainly need to believe it to be something that would receive the approbation of the Lord.

I'm guessing such lack of agreement would stem from your personal rejection of the definition given by prophets and apostles of marriage as being between a man and a woman (see "The Family: a Proclamation to the World")

 

I learned a long time ago, on the high school debate team, that definition of terms makes a crucial difference.