Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It isn't relevant. When sex or sexual behavior is not a factor in relationships, such relationships are considered as asexual, or platonic, or as we in the English language like to call them, friends. The same is true for we heterosexuals who have very close, though non-sexual relationships with females.

 

I haven't been denied a temple recommend for having very close, non-sexual relationships with the opposite sex. A little more than half of my blood relations fall into that category.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So say, that I have engage with a female friend at work. Lets say I hug her and hold he hand and make out with her but I don't do anything "sexual". Would my wife have issue with that? Would the church have any issue with it? I dare say they both would.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have hugged and even kissed the cheeks of my father and brothers and even some male friends, as well as a male homosexual blood relation. No problem.

 

However, wisdom dictates that members not put themselves at high risk for committing sin and to avoid the appearance of sin. This applies to members regardless of sexuality. It is why the heterosexual youth in the Church are strongly discouraged from dating before a certain age, and not allowed to have mixed camp-outs, etc..

 

Besides, homosexuality is different from heterosexuality and so it makes sense that the two are treated different. For example, dating is encourage, and some kissing and hugging is tolerated, among heterosexuals because it is intended to eventually lead to the appropriate sexual expression called traditional marriage and family. The same is not true for homosexuals. In terms of the Church, there is no point to homosexuals kissing and dating since it can't lead to an appropriate sexual expression, but rather puts them at risk of committing sin.

 

This isn't rocket science, and it is separate and apart from the point being made that mere friendships (heterosexual or homosexual) is not a sin.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dude, this is so right on the money. I bet is that this will fly over peoples heads and you will be labeled a "gay basher" again. Lol.

[Gray]

Huh? Sexual relationships outside of marriage are wickedness.

 

 

Why would they be called in? How would he find out they are sexaully active? At any rate, sexual relationships outside of marriage are acts unworthy of a faithful saint.

 

You should also consider that sexual relations really requires two different sexes to participate. Sexually active gay couples really aren't engaging in sex, but are nevertheless abusing their procreative powers. I understand the need to use shorthand and call it "sex" even though it legitimately isn't.

 

 

The church considers gay sexual relationships to be sinful, inside or outside of marriage.

 

 

Why would they be called in? How would he find out they are sexaully active? At any rate, sexual relationships outside of marriage are acts unworthy of a faithful saint.

 

Bishops receive word of this kind of thing all the time. I assume you've heard of excommunication.

 

We're not talking about sex before marriage. We're talking about gay relationships.

 

 

 

You should also consider that sexual relations really requires two different sexes to participate. Sexually active gay couples really aren't engaging in sex, but are nevertheless abusing their procreative powers. I understand the need to use shorthand and call it "sex" even though it legitimately isn't.

 

I can't really speak to your own private definition of the word. 

[CV75]

The church considers gay sexual relationships to be sinful, inside or outside of marriage.

Agreed--I think you're veering away from your point.

[california boy]

I have hugged and even kissed the cheeks of my father and brothers and even some male friends, as well as a male homosexual blood relation. No problem.

 

However, wisdom dictates that members not put themselves at high risk for committing sin and to avoid the appearance of sin. This applies to members regardless of sexuality. It is why the heterosexual youth in the Church are strongly discouraged from dating before a certain age, and not allowed to have mixed camp-outs, etc..

 

Besides, homosexuality is different from heterosexuality and so it makes sense that the two are treated different. For example, dating is encourage, and some kissing and hugging is tolerated, among heterosexuals because it is intended to eventually lead to the appropriate sexual expression called traditional marriage and family. The same is not true for homosexuals. In terms of the Church, there is no point to homosexuals kissing and dating since it can't lead to an appropriate sexual expression, but rather puts them at risk of committing sin.

 

This isn't rocket science, and it is separate and apart from the point being made that mere friendships (heterosexual or homosexual) is not a sin.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dude, we are in complete agreement.  I don't think you kiss your father or brother in the same way a gay person kisses a man.  And that is the point.  One kiss the church has no problem with.  The other kiss is not allowed. A straight single woman can kiss a single guy they are romantically attracted to.  A gay person can not kiss any guy they are romantically attracted to.  Like I said from the beginning.  The church treats gay relationships differently than straight relationships.  

 

When I talked to both my bishop and stake president, they not only had a problem with me kissing a guy or living with a guy that I was romantically attracted to.  They also had a problem with me living with ANY man.  They clearly explained that it was an issue of  avoiding the appearance of evil.  And even though I was gay, if I lived with a woman, it would still have the appearance of evil and not allowed.  Try having a single guy live with a single woman in a ward even if they are just friends and see if the bishop will have a problem with it.  

[CV75]

When I talked to both my bishop and stake president, they not only had a problem with me kissing a guy or living with a guy that I was romantically attracted to.  They also had a problem with me living with ANY man.  They clearly explained that it was an issue of  avoiding the appearance of evil.  And even though I was gay, if I lived with a woman, it would still have the appearance of evil and not allowed.  Try having a single guy live with a single woman in a ward even if they are just friends and see if the bishop will have a problem with it.

Regardless of the circumsatncs or validity of your complaint, having roomates can create a pereption problem for gays as well as straights regardless of the nature of their personal relationships. Neither orientation is being singled out as an exception here.

(Reminder to reply to #175).

[thesometimesaint]

This issue has been talked about before on this forum.  The church does not allow gay members to hug, date, kiss, and even discourages gay members from associating with anyone who is gay.  I was told very specifically that I was not allowed to do any of those things.  I asked if I could have a male room mate and was told no.  I asked if I could have a female room mate and was told no. The only option given to me to be a faithful member was to spend the rest of my life living alone.

 

The church does not treat gay members the same as they do straight members.  

 

Again if anyone told you that they are wrong.

[Raingirl]

Interesting that you did not bold this phrase which for me is the core of the problem.

 

 

The church recognizea the very important human need for close relations that only a family can fulfil, yet their solution to being gay is to be celibate throughout life.  It is unfortunate that gays are not treated the same under the law of chastity which defines sexual sin is sex outside of marriage.

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this,

They are not treated differently. It is against the Law of Chastity for anyone who is not married to have sex outside of marriage - gay or straight. The argument some would make is that gay marriage is legal in some places. That doesn't apply as the church as the church does not recognize those marriages, as is their right or the right of any church.

Some argue that the LoC in this respect doesn't apply to gay people if they can't get married. I was single when I joined the church, still am. I can't get married until someone asks me, and I have no control over that asking. So no sex for me. Or should I be allowed an exception since - as of right now - I can't be married, either.

[Gray]

They are not treated differently. It is against the Law of Chastity for anyone who is not married to have sex outside of marriage - gay or straight. The argument some would make is that gay marriage is legal in some places. That doesn't apply as the church as the church does not recognize those marriages, as is their right or the right of any church.

 

 

And that is why they are treated differently. 

[Gray]

Agreed--I think you're veering away from your point.

 

It's all part of my point - the church's policy marginalizes gay people and makes them feel inferior and unworthy. Under the current paradigm the church is not a safe place for gay folks.

[CV75]

It's all part of my point - the church's policy marginalizes gay people and makes them feel inferior and unworthy. Under the current paradigm the church is not a safe place for gay folks.

Just remember that it's your faulty paradigm, not the Church's. There is no policy to marginalize or "brand" people (your own response to my CFR proves that). The policy you provided shows that the Church's paradigm is to do everything possible to treat gay people as children of God, to view themselves as such, and to act as such.

[CV75]

And that is why they are treated differently. 

The Church doesn't recognize all sorts of marriages between men and women as well, and doesn't recognize civil marriage for certain purposes. So no, gay people are not treated differently from straight people with regard to marriage.

[california boy]

CFR -- we need to be on the same page when discussing this one.

 

There is an entire thread that discussed this subject.  Plenty of quotes from church leaders about the inappropriateness of a gay member kissing, hugging, dating, living etc with another guy.  There are also plenty of quotes from church leaders in avoiding the very appearance of evil.  Look up the thread.  It goes on for about 20 pages. 

 

Do you really think the church leaders wouldn't have a problem with a gay person kissing, hugging, dating another guy?  We aren't talking about kissing your mother you know.  We are talking about the exact same things straight couples do that are romantically attracted to each other.  If a gay person does that, it is a sin even if sex is not involved.  If a straight couple does that, the church allows it as long as sex is not involved.

[wenglund]

So say, that I have engage with a female friend at work. Lets say I hug her and hold he hand and make out with her but I don't do anything "sexual". Would my wife have issue with that? Would the church have any issue with it? I dare say they both would.

 

True. But, the issue is precisely because you are married, and not because kissing and hugging is inherently a sin. The sin in your hypothetical case is emotional infidelity, not hugging and kissing. Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Dude, this is so right on the money. I bet is that this will fly over peoples heads and you will be labeled a "gay basher" again. Lol.

 

Good point. LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Raingirl]

The Church doesn't recognize all sorts of marriages between men and women as well, and doesn't recognize civil marriage for certain purposes. So no, gay people are not treated differently from straight people with regard to marriage.

The Church doesn't recognize all sorts of marriages between men and women as well, and doesn't recognize civil marriage for certain purposes. So no, gay people are not treated differently from straight people with regard to marriage.

This. Exactly.

But some people choose to ignore those truths which don't fit with their own wants.

[wenglund]

Dude, we are in complete agreement.  I don't think you kiss your father or brother in the same way a gay person kisses a man.  And that is the point.  One kiss the church has no problem with.  The other kiss is not allowed. A straight single woman can kiss a single guy they are romantically attracted to.  A gay person can not kiss any guy they are romantically attracted to.  Like I said from the beginning.  The church treats gay relationships differently than straight relationships.  

 

When I talked to both my bishop and stake president, they not only had a problem with me kissing a guy or living with a guy that I was romantically attracted to.  They also had a problem with me living with ANY man.  They clearly explained that it was an issue of  avoiding the appearance of evil.  And even though I was gay, if I lived with a woman, it would still have the appearance of evil and not allowed.  Try having a single guy live with a single woman in a ward even if they are just friends and see if the bishop will have a problem with it.  

 

I am currently a single guy living with a single woman (my widowed mother, for whom I am care-taking), and the Bishop respects this.

 

The substantive point being, the Church's primary concern is saving souls and enabling them to become like Christ. As such, the Church wisely and lovingly discourages relationships that it views as impediments to salvation and exaltation, regardless of sexual orientation. In short, the Church isn't picking on anyone or any one group of people. Rather, it is has everyones best interest at heart.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

There is an entire thread that discussed this subject.  Plenty of quotes from church leaders about the inappropriateness of a gay member kissing, hugging, dating, living etc with another guy.  There are also plenty of quotes from church leaders in avoiding the very appearance of evil.  Look up the thread.  It goes on for about 20 pages. 

 

Do you really think the church leaders wouldn't have a problem with a gay person kissing, hugging, dating another guy?  We aren't talking about kissing your mother you know.  We are talking about the exact same things straight couples do that are romantically attracted to each other.  If a gay person does that, it is a sin even if sex is not involved.  If a straight couple does that, the church allows it as long as sex is not involved.

You'll have to provide the link to the thread.

 

Some same-sex hugging and kissing doesn't carry the "appearance of evil" -- why do you think that is? Who would know, and how? How is the "appearance of evil" discerned in a community of saints?

 

All the things a conscience-stricken male-female couple would go in to see the bishop about are essentiailly the same things a conscience-stricken same-sex couple would go in and see the bishop about.

 

When unmarried male-female couples are publicly affectionate, the community of saints (individually or collectively) or priesthood leaders respond according to their prospect of marriage and whether the behavior is consistent with their covenanting in the temple together. Unmarried same-sex couples haven't that option for eternal marriage, so the community responds according to a trajectory where escalating affections cannot possibly be legitimized or consummated in a marriage relationship. Their behavior is not consistent with covenanting in the temple together, and it is for their own sakes that the Church provides the counsel and standards it does.

[Stone holm]

One has to be careful about some articles on the Internet about Pope Francis and civil unions as there are several hoaxes and parodies which have gone viral. That being said, although I am not Catholic, I am an admirer of this Pope as we seem to finally have a person of international prominence teaching the teachings of Christ instead of the thinly veiled cultural concepts of a more vicious age.

[wenglund]

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/705343621/Mormon-church-supports-Salt-Lake-Citys-protections-for-gay-rights.html?pg=all?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

 

I was aware of this, but unfortunately it doesn't satisfy the CFR for the claim: "The Church has come out in favor of legislation respecting the financial obligations, and hospital visitation.." The superfluous ordinance mentioned in the linked article is in regards to housing and employment, not financial obligations and hospital visits. And, while the church was quoted as spoking to the issue of hospital visitations, it was in terms of "not objecting" rather than "favoring."  Sorry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 13, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Oh, snap....!

Its unfortunate that Wade doesn't understand or represent his own church's approach to gay issues.

 

CFR that I don't understand my Church's approach to gay issues. (see my post above)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gray]

Just remember that it's your faulty paradigm, not the Church's. There is no policy to marginalize or "brand" people (your own response to my CFR proves that). The policy you provided shows that the Church's paradigm is to do everything possible to treat gay people as children of God, to view themselves as such, and to act as such.

 

I think you're coming at this from the viewpoint that the church is trying to treat them as respectfully as possible, while still saying that SS relationships are sinful and prohibiting them on penalty of church discipline/loss of worthiness. I agree that they are being as respectful as they can within those limitations, but the results of that are still enormously harmful to the well-being of gay people in the church.

[Gray]

The Church doesn't recognize all sorts of marriages between men and women as well, and doesn't recognize civil marriage for certain purposes. So no, gay people are not treated differently from straight people with regard to marriage.

 

You can't say that the church doesn't treat them differently when it also doesn't recognize their marriages. 

[Gray]

This. Exactly.

But some people choose to ignore those truths which don't fit with their own wants.

 

It's not about my wants. It's about standing up for what's right - and in this instance, what's right, as I see it, is stopping or preventing a tremendous amount of harm that is being done to gay people.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Gray

[wenglund]

 

I think the Pope is far more concerned about preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage than in whether or not some may interpret his remarks as any sort of endorsement of homosexual relations.  

 

Suppose we took sexual relations completely out of the equation by allowing any group of adults to enter into a civil union, regardless of what type of relationship they have.  For example, why not allow an adult caring for his aged parents in his home to enter into a civil union with them?  Or allow two unrelated friends to form a non-sex based civil union? (Sort of like a business partnership, except with greater rights and obligations).  Gay relationships would be included, but such civil unions would not constitute a formal endorsement of homosexual relations, as they would be open to any two (or more) adults. Such civil unions would extend all the legal benefits and obligations of marriage to any group of adults, regardless of the nature of their personal relationship. 

 

BTW, such civil unions would better achieve “marriage equality” than  “gay marriage.”  After all, even states that allow “gay marriage” in the name of “marriage equality” do not allow any two adults to marry.

 

 

Two things. First. the notion of "marriage equality" is nonsensical because different kinds of relationships are inherently not equal, and it doesn't make sense to treat inequalities and equalities. For example, as a general rule, heterosexual relationships are naturally capable of multiplying and replenishing the earth, whereas homosexual relationships are not. It wouldn't make sense to impose equal procreative expectations generally on homosexual relationships as we do on heterosexual relationships.

 

Second, the notion of "civil unions" you proposed ignores a key reason that governments got into marital licensing and regulation business to begin with--i.e. to protect and promote the fundamental institution of society, in large part by legitimizing and encouraging formally committed procreative relationships. By removing sex, particularly procreative sex, from the equation and the product resulting therefrom (i.e. inheritors), the state would effectively divest itself of interest in regulating marriage or civil unions, and would be better served shifting it all under contract law.

 

At least that is how I view it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-