Rick Warren On Homosexuality

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................   

I still have issue with the idea that gay marriage is so wrong but polygamy/polyandry is ok.

You are right to see a discontinuity there, Tacenda.  Mormons were once harshly persecuted for violating the marriage norms of American society.  Most Americans considered Mormon marriage practices as barbaric (just as Rob Osborn is deeply affronted by legalization of same-sex marriage), and proceeded to force them to abandon polygyny.

 

The real question which confronts us is whether we should be able to dictate the marriage norms of others in civil society, i.e., can we control the marriage behavior of others through legislation?  Should we enact into law our own religious sense of propriety in marriage, or is this something which should be handled as a personal matter of conscience.  If we want to be tolerated, should we not tolerate others?

 

In fact, court decisions seem to be moving inexorably toward the legalization of a broad range of unusual marriage practices, particularly through the finding of some restrictive provisions of state law as unconstitutional.  This means that polygyny, polyandry, etc., may soon be legal in the USA.  That does not, however, mean that it will be mandatory.  Only that it will be an additional choice for those who wish to adopt such practices.  I doubt that the Mormon Church will adopt any new (or old) marriage practices.

[california boy]

Very probable that I could meet up with you, grab lunch and have a good conversation and part friends. I have a cousin who is gay and I get along great with him, always have. But I do stand where I do on the issue and I'm not budging any. When we are talking about drastically changing society to come to agreement with redefining marriage, morality, etc, I have big issues with that and so does the Church. Here is what the church has to say-

"The Church’s approach to this issue stands apart from society in many ways. And that’s alright. Reasonable people can and do differ. From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior. That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change. There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right."

 

Let me be clear what I am speechless about your comments

 

Herein lies the problem though. A gay couple with children is not a "family". The Church nor God will ever recognize a gay couple as a "family". 

 

 

For you to have such distain for gays as to not recognize their children as being part of a family is beyond belief.  And then to hide behind the church to find despertly find some support to this appaling attitude does a great disservice to the church.

 

CFR where the church does not recognize gay families as being families.  

 

They may not be like your family, but they are still families.  Often they are the only family a child can have because their own straight father and mother have abandoned them.  Do you suggest that these children are better off in an orphanage or foster care than to be with two loving parents of the same sex?  Are you so willing to leave innocent children homeless because of your distain towards gays?  Since you so blindly follow church policy, is that also church policy? 

 

Many recent studies have shown that a gay couple raising children creates more problems than the traditional family

 

 

CFR that gay couple raising children creates more problems than the traditional family.

 

Here are a few studies that completely disagree with your statement.

 

From the American Academy of Pediatrics

 

The Australian study of child health in same sex families by the University of Melbourne 

 

Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

 

This statement by the Canadian Psychological Association

 

If these studies are not enough for you, there are a myriad of other studies I can point you to.

 

And if you are thinking of the Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin study, I will be more than happy to provide all of the information on why that flawed study has been roundly condemned.  

[Rob Osborn]

Let me be clear what I am speechless about your comments

 

 

For you to have such distain for gays as to not recognize their children as being part of a family is beyond belief.  And then to hide behind the church to find despertly find some support to this appaling attitude does a great disservice to the church.

 

CFR where the church does not recognize gay families as being families.  

 

They may not be like your family, but they are still families.  Often they are the only family a child can have because their own straight father and mother have abandoned them.  Do you suggest that these children are better off in an orphanage or foster care than to be with two loving parents of the same sex?  Are you so willing to leave innocent children homeless because of your distain towards gays?  Since you so blindly follow church policy, is that also church policy? 

 

 

CFR that gay couple raising children creates more problems than the traditional family.

 

Here are a few studies that completely disagree with your statement.

 

From the American Academy of Pediatrics

 

The Australian study of child health in same sex families by the University of Melbourne 

 

Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

 

This statement by the Canadian Psychological Association

 

If these studies are not enough for you, there are a myriad of other studies I can point you to.

 

And if you are thinking of the Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin study, I will be more than happy to provide all of the information on why that flawed study has been roundly condemned.

So, you get to decide which studies are acceptable heh? Well then forget it.

I don't hide behind anyone. I stand openly in disfavor of unlawful unions such as gay marriage. And NO, a gay couple is not a family. thats blasphemous.

[california boy]

So, you get to decide which studies are acceptable heh? Well then forget it.

I don't hide behind anyone. I stand openly in disfavor of unlawful unions such as gay marriage. And NO, a gay couple is not a family. thats blasphemous.

This is not how CFR's work Rob.  Either provide the information or withdraw your claim.  You are more than welome to use the "Mark Regnerus study" or any other study you want to dig up.  I was just informing you that I would be providing all of the information on why that flawed study has been roundly condemned.  Since you said there were numerous studies, this should not be a problem to fulfill the CFR.  

 

We aren't talking about gay marriage here ROB.  I am well aware of the churches stand on SSM.  We are talking about families.  This was the CFR

CFR where the church does not recognize gay families as being families. 

 

 

At least have some honor and answer the CFR's or withdraw your claims.

[Damien the Leper]

It's sad that anyone commits suicide. I do not hate gay people just as I don't hate people who are addicted to drugs. But, I do have hatred towards the sinful nature of society. i thus look at sin with contempt. Allowing gay people to marry does not solve suicide. Sitting back and doing nothing to stop immorality does not stop suicide. The Church has always offered a helping hand to help the gay people in society. But, the Church stands firmly in acknowledging that homosexual behavior that is acted out is just as sinful as all other sexual immoral acts. I have contempt also for sins by people who cheat on their spouses.

Not sure what exactly the best answer should be to help gay people feel more welcome but at the same time still teach it is wrong behaviour.

It took reading the first two sentences to realise how flawed and how easily your position falls apart. Sexual orientation, whatever persuasion , is absolutely NOT comparable to any kind of addiction. Making such an assertion demonstrates ignorance and lack of education in pgy and logic. It is rather sad and sickening.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Herein lies the problem though. A gay couple with children is not a "family". The Church nor God will ever recognize a gay couple as a "family". Many recent studies have shown that a gay couple raising children creates more problems than the traditional family. he traditional family is the only thing that will keep society together- it is the very fabric of freedom and a free society. I'm not sorry to anyone for holding this view. I was taught what the traditional family was, now as a father and teacher I teach my family and those in my stewardship about the traditional family. Hopefully they grow up and keep moral principle in place and do the same. I will defend the family at all cost. Anything that seeks to destroy the family unit I will defend with my life if needed. This philosophy of "the new normal" (Thanks for nothin Hollywood) is a gross abomination and am sad to see so many Americans embrace such blasphemy.

Fascinating. I guess Canada is on the verge of absolute downfall. CFR on these studies and provide professional critiques of such studies.

[Rob Osborn]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

http://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng&query=definition+family+gay+couple

[Rob Osborn]

The church does not, and never will, acknowledge a gay couple as a "family". If one really needs a CFR and you are in the least bit familiar with the LDS church then you will know you live in deception. Everyone LDS knows that Church will not acknowledge a gay couple as a family.

[halconero]

Fascinating. I guess Canada is on the verge of absolute downfall. CFR on these studies and provide professional critiques of such studies.

 

Canada legalizes same-sex marriage and 8.5 years later the mayor of its biggest city admits to smoking crack. 

 

Coincidence?!?!?! The parallels are there sheeple! You just can't see it!

Edited December 9, 2013 by halconero

[Damien the Leper]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

http://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng&query=definition+family+gay+couple

What is this a response to? If this a response to my CFR then you must do much better.

[Rob Osborn]

It took reading the first two sentences to realise how flawed and how easily your position falls apart. Sexual orientation, whatever persuasion , is absolutely NOT comparable to any kind of addiction. Making such an assertion demonstrates ignorance and lack of education in pgy and logic. It is rather sad and sickening.

You misunderstood me. Sexual immorality is sinful. So is drug addiction.

[Damien the Leper]

Canada legalizes same-sex marriage and 8.5 years later the mayor of its biggest city admits to smoking crack. 

 

Coincidence?!?!?! The parallels are there sheeple! You just can't see it!

You are just so damn cute!

[Rob Osborn]

What is this a response to? If this a response to my CFR then you must do much better.

The CFR was directed towards californiaboy.

You can use it too though- good stuff there

[Calm]

The church does not, and never will, acknowledge a gay couple as a "family". If one really needs a CFR and you are in the least bit familiar with the LDS church then you will know you live in deception. Everyone LDS knows that Church will not acknowledge a gay couple as a family.

I would actually like to see this, so CFR.

 

Even while not approving of an unmarried couple living together or even rejection "marriage" as the definition for the union of those of the same sex, I don't believe I've ever heard someone in the Church say the group of parents and children where the parents are the same sex is.  We recognize families with only one parent even, we recognize families with divorced parents and with more than two (adding in step parents).  I don't see the difference between the homosexual or the heterosexual in this situation.  It may not be the ideal or traditional family, but that doesn't mean it is not a family.

 

I did a site google for lds.org on "not a family" and "homosexual", also "gay".  No hits.

 

Recognition by the Church that families come in a lot of varieties, not just the ideal...though there isn't identification of same sex parents:

 

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1991/06/fitting-into-your-family?lang=eng

 

The idea that marriage between parents will strengthen a family implies that the family exists without the marriage.

 

A family can be different than just a mother and father and children:

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=391805e063feb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Edited December 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

You misunderstood me. Sexual immorality is sinful. So is drug addiction.

You will probably get general agreement that "sexual immorality" is sinful, and that the same applies to drug addiction, but that doesn't really get to the nub of the problem we are discussing here.

 

The real question is first, What is sexually immoral?  Divergent groups (whether religious or not) have divergent answers.  In a society governed by Muslim Sharia Law, the Islamic standards can be imposed and criminal penalties applied for disobedience.  However, what do we do in a pluralistic society such as the USA?  There are a host of different lifestyles, including very different views on what is sexually immoral.  Should our police and courts enforce one particular view?  If so, which one?  Or, does it appear that our courts are moving away from dictating sexual morality for adults?

 

We face a similar problem in addressing how to deal with Roman Catholic attempts to make their doctrine on life beginning at conception part of our criminal law, even though most people do not agree with that view.

[Rob Osborn]

I would actually like to see this, so CFR.

 

Even while not approving of an unmarried couple living together or even rejection "marriage" as the definition for the union, I don't believe I've ever heard someone say they are not a family in the Church.  We recognize families with only one parent even.  I don't see the difference between the homosexual or the heterosexual in this situation.  It may not be the ideal or traditional family, but that doesn't mean it is not a family.

 

I did a site google for lds.org on "not a family" and "homosexual", also "gay".  No hits.

If one really thinks that "gay couple" and "family" equate to the same thing in LDS doctrine then they have no idea whatsoever what LDS doctrine even is. The Church is very clear on what a family is and what it is not. A "family" is definately not a gay couple raising children. Read the Proclamation a few more times. There is no doubt what a family is-

http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

[Rob Osborn]

You will probably get general agreement that "sexual immorality" is sinful, and that the same applies to drug addiction, but that doesn't really get to the nub of the problem we are discussing here.

 

The real question is first, What is sexually immoral?  Divergent groups (whether religious or not) have divergent answers.  In a society governed by Muslim Sharia Law, the Islamic standards can be imposed and criminal penalties applied for disobedience.  However, what do we do in a pluralistic society such as the USA?  There are a host of different lifestyles, including very different views on what is sexually immoral.  Should our police and courts enforce one particular view?  If so, which one?  Or, does it appear that our courts are moving away from dictating sexual morality for adults?

 

We face a similar problem in addressing how to deal with Roman Catholic attempts to make their doctrine on life beginning at conception part of our criminal law, even though most people do not agree with that view.

The prophets of God have clearly defined what sexual immorality is. If you don't know, just go to www.lds.org to find out. As for when life begins, it should be asked- why are we messing around with God's sacred laws of procreation and making a mockery of Him? We all know that sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage between man and woman and that sexual reproduction is a gift given to man to multiply and replenish the earth. Are we relly going to throw God under the bus and mock Him?

[Calm]

If one really thinks that "gay couple" and "family" equate to the same thing in LDS doctrine then they have no idea whatsoever what LDS doctrine even is. The Church is very clear on what a family is and what it is not. A "family" is definately not a gay couple raising children. Read the Proclamation a few more times. There is no doubt what a family is-

http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

Sorry, doesn't answer the CFR.  One has to make a leap between "marriage" creates a "traditional family" to "unmarried couple" means "no family".

 

Since the Church recognizes families with unwed parents, families of divorced parents, family members that are not even blood relatives, families that don't have parents who are biologically or even legally the children's parents, I think it is necessary to show that in this one case of where the adults in the group are in a same sex relationship, even if one is a biological parent of the children, it in no way is looked on as a family by the Church, not even a nontraditional or nonideal one.

 

Repeat of a link showing that the Church does not require the presence of a father and a mother with children to call the group a family:

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=391805e063feb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Edited December 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

The prophets of God have clearly defined what sexual immorality is. If you don't know, just go to www.lds.org to find out. As for when life begins, it should be asked- why are we messing around with God's sacred laws of procreation and making a mockery of Him? We all know that sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage between man and woman and that sexual reproduction is a gift given to man to multiply and replenish the earth. Are we relly going to throw God under the bus and mock Him?

 

I know what the Church teaches. What I'm not convinced of is why the laws of this country need to comply with the religious dictates of just my conscience.

[Rob Osborn]

Sorry, doesn't answer the CFR.  One has to make a leap between "marriage" creates a "traditional family" to "unmarried couple" means "no family".

 

Since the Church recognizes families with unwed parents, families of divorced parents, family members that are not even blood relatives, families that don't have parents who are biologically or even legally the children's parents, I think it is necessary to show that in this one case of where the adults in the group are in a same sex relationship, even if one is a biological parent of the children, it in no way is looked on as a family by the Church, not even a nontraditional or nonideal one.

 

Repeat of a link showing that the Church does not require the presence of a father and a mother with children to call the group a family:

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=391805e063feb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

"THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

The church does not recognize a gay couple as a family. Read the above- that is how a family is defined. There are instances where divorce, loss of spose, etc happen and we still refer to them as family. But, the church never has, never will recognize a gay couple as a family. Get over it already

 

Supply the requested references that directly address your claim or leave the thread.

[Rob Osborn]

I know what the Church teaches. What I'm not convinced of is why the laws of this country need to comply with the religious dictates of just my conscience.

its what we call "moral law"

[thesometimesaint]

In my experience the law seldom has anything to with being moral. More along the lines of what is punishable by law. Laws against homosexuality like laws against what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom are unenforceable by the law.

 

Ps; It is illegal for rich and poor alike to eat out of trashcans and sleep under bridges.

Edited December 9, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[EllenMaksoud]

I see quite some polarization on this issue. I expect that in 20 years, we will have more pressing problems. The Ocean levels will have risen enough perhaps enough to really frighten humans. Failing the idea of Jesus Christ returning to bail our sorry posteriors out, perhaps science, will have done some real "science" by then.

 

I am not going to waste my time moralizing about non heterosexual relationships, because I don't really have a position. I do not think that Heavenly Father created us so that a certain percentage of us commit suicide.  There are many causes of suicide, depression being one of them, there are obviously others.

 

From a genetic perspective we are dumb animals. We once put women in tents outside the camp for a few days a month. We thought that what we now know as Hanson's disease was uncleanliness or even evil. In my life time, human research has stopped at least temporarily Polio. We are on the verge of stopping Malaria. What is to say that we will not find things about Homosexuality that will make our moralistic hate seem disingenuous.  Happily, while we sit here ruthlessly moralizing about the welfare of others, I believe that the GA will find a compassionate way to deal with this.  I am sad that more people can not see that we as humans we will continue to develop and solve problems the way that God intended until the end of days.

 

To those who are younger, may you be as sure of your position when your life is over as you are now.

Edited December 9, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[thesometimesaint]

Everything will turn out OK in the end. If it's not OK we know its not the end.

[stemelbow]

I don't get the argument, particularly when worded like Warren does, that gay marriage is some offensive effort to change the definition of a word.  Words are applied differently all the time.  No one seems to make a big fuss about it.  Is this now a new crusade to say words can't evolve?  Words can't be used to apply a different twist to things?  This happens all the time. 

 

I don't see it.  He's asked why be opposed to equal rights, essentially.  And he answers by saying he's really just about words not changing meaning over time.  Sorry, but that's just stupid, the more I think about it.

 

Opposition will die out soon enough.  Gay marriage will be.  Might as well get used to it.  Believe what you want about gay sexual activity (it's an abomination or whatever), but fighting gay marriage is getting you nowhere. 

 

You simply can't force the nation to accept that marriage must only be what you want it to be.  That attempted argument is useless.