Harry Reid & Enda

[rockpond]

I have no word game, just a certain perception.

The pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46), was an object, not a value. Figuratively, it represents the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is a conglomeration of principles that establish the highest order of righteousness. Each of these principles is a value and the Church has adopted them.

We can still highly value something that is not a principle. Highly valuing money, for example, doesn't make money the principle. What makes one put money above charity is not a resonance with a divine value to love but with a carnal, sensual and devilish value to look out for oneself. Both sets of values are "spiritual" in nature, and not "physical." The difference is that divinity holds spiritual matters above physical things, and ungodliness holds physical things above the spiritual matters.

Okay then, I'm not on board with your perception.

[CV75]

Okay then, I'm not on board with your perception.

I think that goes without saying!

 

But it seems to me that making gay “marriage” a value based on a misapplication of the original value is an example of a word game since it changes the fundamental definition of the value. Such a word game is used (intentionally or not) to conflate error and truth. While this is done by the political powers that be, it is not done by the Church.

[california boy]

No one both within the church and without can say that God since the beginning of time has defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  So even thought the proclamation now makes that claim, we all know that has changed from time to time.  That is an unarguable fact.

 

CV75 may be right.  The value is marriage.  The variation of that value is polygamy.  Another variation of marriage may very well be marriage between same sex couples.  God is in charge of this, not man.  If God feels like there is value in ssm and a better alternative to man living alone, celibate, without a companion, then He will reveal that practice of SSM to the prophet.  God has clearly stated from the beginning of time that "it is not good for man to be alone."  There is certainly reason why he many issue such a revelation.  Whether he does or not is not up to any mortal to decide.  If mortals were to decide what God will reveal and what he will not reveal, the restoration would have never taken place.

[Scott Lloyd]

No one both within the church and without can say that God since the beginning of time has defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  So even thought the proclamation now makes that claim, we all know that has changed from time to time.  That is an unarguable fact.

 

CFR that there has ever been a time in the history of mankind before now when marriage has been defined as being between two people of the same gender.

[rockpond]

I think that goes without saying!

 

But it seems to me that making gay “marriage” a value based on a misapplication of the original value is an example of a word game since it changes the fundamental definition of the value. Such a word game is used (intentionally or not) to conflate error and truth. While this is done by the political powers that be, it is not done by the Church.

 

I realize you feel that way because you've defined the value based on the genders of the participants in a marriage.  I have not.  So, I can embrace gay marriage without abandoning or changing my beliefs or values.  I define marriage by the love and commitment two people are willing to give to each other and God.  I define it by their desire to unite themselves as a family.

[CV75]

The value is marriage.  The variation of that value is polygamy.  Another variation of marriage may very well be marriage between same sex couples.

I don’t see how… Look at the history of marriage (within the context of the religious history accepted by LDS, anyway). Human sexual relations require the interaction of the attributes of separate sexes; interaction between the shared attributes of two separate people of the same sex is something else entirely. Since marriage is the institution for sexual relations, a same-sex construct cannot be institutionalized in marriage.

 

Will God reveal some kind of same-sex institution as an alternative to marriage? Or a halting alternative to perpetuating the race? Doesn't make any sense, as neither serves any higher purpose than individual ambition.

[rockpond]

I don’t see how… Look at the history of marriage (within the context of the religious history accepted by LDS, anyway). Human sexual relations require the interaction of the attributes of separate sexes; interaction between the shared attributes of two separate people of the same sex is something else entirely. Since marriage is the institution for sexual relations, a same-sex construct cannot be institutionalized in marriage.

 

Will God reveal some kind of same-sex institution as an alternative to marriage? Or a halting alternative to perpetuating the race? Doesn't make any sense, as neither serves any higher purpose than individual ambition.

 

Wow.  Marriage... reduced to sex.

 

How does same gender marriage serve no higher purpose than individual ambition?

[CV75]

I realize you feel that way because you've defined the value based on the genders of the participants in a marriage.  I have not.  So, I can embrace gay marriage without abandoning or changing my beliefs or values.  I define marriage by the love and commitment two people are willing to give to each other and God.  I define it by their desire to unite themselves as a family.

That's fine for a personal definition, but it doesn't work for the covenant to which God is a party, and especially for His purposes that covenant alone promises to fulfill.

[CV75]

Wow.  Marriage... reduced to sex.

 

How does same gender marriage serve no higher purpose than individual ambition?

It is evident that before I can answer that question for you, you have to overcome the prejudice that sexual relations, as God instituted it, is debased.

[thesometimesaint]

Wow.  Marriage... reduced to sex.

 

How does same gender marriage serve no higher purpose than individual ambition?

 

Marriage is the community legitimatizing of sex.

[california boy]

CFR that there has ever been a time in the history of mankind before now when marriage has been defined as being between two people of the same gender.

I never said that there was a time in history where marriage has been defined between two people of the same gender. What I said that was indisputable is that marriage has never been defined solely between ONE man and ONE woman.  Even today, that definition of marriage is not universal.  Please reread my post.

[rockpond]

That's fine for a personal definition, but it doesn't work for the covenant to which God is a party, and especially for His purposes that covenant alone promises to fulfill.

We've been through this before... I believe in the covenant that has been revealed to us. I live it. I'm just not willing to say that God can't expand that covenant or add another covenant as he has in the past.

[rockpond]

Marriage is the community legitimatizing of sex.

I tend to think of it as having higher ideals.

[rockpond]

It is evident that before I can answer that question for you, you have to overcome the prejudice that sexual relations, as God instituted it, is debased.

I don't have a prejudice that sexual relations as God institutes them are debased. They are a wonderful means of uniting my wife and I as well as bringing children into the world.

Now do I get to hear your answer as to how gay marriage serves no higher purpose than individual ambition?

[california boy]

I don’t see how… Look at the history of marriage (within the context of the religious history accepted by LDS, anyway). Human sexual relations require the interaction of the attributes of separate sexes; interaction between the shared attributes of two separate people of the same sex is something else entirely. Since marriage is the institution for sexual relations, a same-sex construct cannot be institutionalized in marriage.

 

Will God reveal some kind of same-sex institution as an alternative to marriage? Or a halting alternative to perpetuating the race? Doesn't make any sense, as neither serves any higher purpose than individual ambition.

I noticed that you cut and pasted only part of my post, and probably for good reason.  You completely cut out the rational on why a change from God may take place.  Would you like to comment on that or do you think my reasoning is completely within the possibility of the concept of revelation that you have no argument against that.

 

CV75 may be right.  The value is marriage.  The variation of that value is polygamy.  Another variation of marriage may very well be marriage between same sex couples.  God is in charge of this, not man.  If God feels like there is value in ssm and a better alternative to man living alone, celibate, without a companion, then He will reveal that practice of SSM to the prophet.  God has clearly stated from the beginning of time that "it is not good for man to be alone."  There is certainly reason why he many issue such a revelation.  Whether he does or not is not up to any mortal to decide.  If mortals were to decide what God will reveal and what he will not reveal, the restoration would have never taken place.

 

 

 

As far as speculation on whether God would call gay marriage, marriage is completely up to Him.  The fact is, there are many, many reasons why people get married.  In my opinion, sex or how sex takes place is way down the list for the reason a person should marry.  I think if you did a survey of why people choose to marry, there would be more than one single answer: Sex.  If you make sex the only reason to marry, then no wonder more and more people are choosing to not marry. 

[thesometimesaint]

I tend to think of it as having higher ideals.

 

I do too. But that is not the issue. The community gets to decide whom can marry(Have legitimate sex) whom. In the US the community is the US.

[california boy]

Marriage is the community legitimatizing of sex.

If you truly believe that "Marriage is the community legitimatizing of sex, then why not support teenagers getting married before they are tempted to have sex.  That way the community truly legitimatizes the sexual relationships that so often form while still in high school.

 

Oh wait, there may actually be more to marriage than just sex, and more to the community that marriage brings other than legitimatizing sex.

[rockpond]

I do too. But that is not the issue. The community gets to decide whom can marry(Have legitimate sex) whom. In the US the community is the US.

 

Well, the community here in the U.S. seems to be deciding that homosexual couples can marry.

 

Yesterday, Illinois became the 16th state, following Hawaii that just put marriage equality into law a few days earlier.

[CV75]

We've been through this before... I believe in the covenant that has been revealed to us. I live it. I'm just not willing to say that God can't expand that covenant or add another covenant as he has in the past.

Expanding it would require additonal sexes to be involved, not reducing it to one.

[CV75]

I tend to think of it as having higher ideals.

There is no higher ideal than carrying out the work and glory of the immortality and eternal life of man, which is what the covenant of marriage is all about from the LDS perspective.

[CV75]

I don't have a prejudice that sexual relations as God institutes them are debased. They are a wonderful means of uniting my wife and I as well as bringing children into the world. Now do I get to hear your answer as to how gay marriage serves no higher purpose than individual ambition?

If you look at the history of marriage (within the context of the religious history accepted by LDS, anyway), human sexual relations require the interaction of the attributes of the two separate sexes; interaction between the shared attributes of two separate people of the same sex is something else entirely. Since marriage is the divine institution for sexual relations, a same-sex construct cannot be institutionalized in marriage.

 

This why a same-sex institution as an alternative to marriage, or to offer an alternative purpose to perpetuating the race on an immortal and eternal level doesn't make any sense, except to serve one’s individual, lone ambition.

 

If you think we’ve been through this before, ask new questions.

[CV75]

I noticed that you cut and pasted only part of my post, and probably for good reason.  You completely cut out the rational on why a change from God may take place.  Would you like to comment on that or do you think my reasoning is completely within the possibility of the concept of revelation that you have no argument against that.

 

As far as speculation on whether God would call gay marriage, marriage is completely up to Him.  The fact is, there are many, many reasons why people get married.  In my opinion, sex or how sex takes place is way down the list for the reason a person should marry.  I think if you did a survey of why people choose to marry, there would be more than one single answer: Sex.  If you make sex the only reason to marry, then no wonder more and more people are choosing to not marry. 

Your speculation that He might "call gay marriage, marriage" has nothing to do with the definition the Church is using, or with the direction the Church is going (and can reasonably be projected to go) with marriage. By explaining that, your mistaken rationale wasn’t necessary to address point by point.

 

Of course there are many reasons people get married, but there is only one reason He established the covenant the way He did. This highest purpose requires the alignment of all other reasons with His revealed will, and with this purpose, which is why we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[rockpond]

Expanding it would require additonal sexes to be involved, not reducing it to one.

Expanding it to include gay couples. But go ahead, continue to dictate what God can and cannot do.

[rockpond]

There is no higher ideal than carrying out the work and glory of the immortality and eternal life of man, which is what the covenant of marriage is all about from the LDS perspective.

I always thought that carrying out the work of the immortality and eternal life of man constituted far more than procreative sex. Obviously, that's a part of it but not the only aspect.

[rockpond]

If you look at the history of marriage (within the context of the religious history accepted by LDS, anyway), human sexual relations require the interaction of the attributes of the two separate sexes; interaction between the shared attributes of two separate people of the same sex is something else entirely. Since marriage is the divine institution for sexual relations, a same-sex construct cannot be institutionalized in marriage.

This why a same-sex institution as an alternative to marriage, or to offer an alternative purpose to perpetuating the race on an immortal and eternal level doesn't make any sense, except to serve one’s individual, lone ambition.

If you think we’ve been through this before, ask new questions.

Why would I ask new questions when you haven't answered the old ones. But I'll answer it for you: Committing to love and care for another person til death or eternally is, by very definition, not serving "one's individual, loan ambition."

But that doesn't fit your dogma, so I don't expect you to agree.