Tolerance Versus Acceptance

[jaxenro]

Is the state of non-married cohabitation preferable in your view, when it comes to gays?

Are you seriously suggesting I should accept SSM marriage over two guys just committing sodomy? Neither is preferable but at least the latter is private and between them and God. And no that isn't tacit approval either it's still sodomy.

[pogi]

My attendance would constitute approval to me. At thd end of the day I would know in my heart that, to me, attendance would equal approval.

We live in a time of hard moral choices. Easier perhaps in making a living, and obtaining food, but harder in that society is moving further and further from our beliefs. There are no real guidelines for some of this but individual choices. I understand yours you don't understand mine but I doubt eithe of us will change

 

I agree that we live in times of hard moral choices.  For me, I will always put my family before my need to make a point, especially when I have already clearly defined my position.  Good, better, best. 

Edited March 17, 2014 by pogi

[Gray]

Are you seriously suggesting I should accept SSM marriage over two guys just committing sodomy? Neither is preferable but at least the latter is private and between them and God. And no that isn't tacit approval either it's still sodomy.

 

"Sodomy" is a modern concept, not really a Biblical one in the sense you mean. In any case, by the modern concept, most married hetero couples commit it regularly.

 

Even if you think so poorly of the relationships of gay people (which are really no different from anyone else), isn't it preferable to encourage monogamy and commitment? Isn't the best way to do that through marriage? 

[jaxenro]

You seem to be confusing dialogue, disagreement, and disapproval with intolerance. I simply think that it would be an unwise decision to not attend and is a clear confusion of priority. Family should always come before the imagined need to make your position crystal clear beyond doubt. Once they have decided (knowing of your disapproval), you should accept the truth of what is, even if you disapprove, or you might lose a son. It simply isn't worth it. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not attending.

Of course I accept your decision to not attend, I simply don't approve. That is tolerance.

Ok I accept your disapproval as heartfelt and not intolerance.

Isn't there a scripture about if they eye offends thee pluck it out? Where would you draw the line at accepting what your children do? Homosexuality? Spouse abuse? Murder?

My children are adults they make their own choices in life. I don't interfere or presume at this point to tell them what to do. They know my positions on issues. And actually none of them are gay.

[jaxenro]

Even if you think so poorly of the relationships of gay people (which are really no different from anyone else), isn't it preferable to encourage monogamy and commitment? Isn't the best way to do that through marriage?

No. I personally don't think homosexual marriages are the building blocks of a secure and stable society.

[pogi]

Isn't there a scripture about if they eye offends thee pluck it out? Where would you draw the line at accepting what your children do? Homosexuality? Spouse abuse? Murder?

 

I would draw the line when someone applies that scripture to a son or daughter.  I remember a different story about a prodigal son who offended his father... I also remember the example of the Savior who accepts all sinners who come unto him, even in the midst of darkness and sin.  Without acceptance there can be no atoning or forgiveness. 

 

There would be no line for me in accepting what my children do.  What would my non-acceptance accomplish?  It won't take back what they have done.  That doesn't mean that I can't disapprove or be disappointed.  But, if I do not accept my children and their choices, they will quickly not accept me and my teachings.  We are called to forgive all men, how can we forgive without acceptance?  How can we teach and be an influence for good without acceptance?

Edited March 17, 2014 by pogi

[Gray]

No. I personally don't think homosexual marriages are the building blocks of a secure and stable society.

 

Do you think marriage can provide gay couples some of the same benefits as straight couples? As in greater stability, greater monogamy? 

[jaxenro]

I would draw the line when someone applies that scripture to a son or daughter. I remember a different story about a prodigal son who offended his father... I also remember the example of the Savior who accepts all sinners who come unto him, even in the midst of darkness and sin. Without acceptance there can be no atoning or forgiveness.

There would be no line for me in accepting what my children do. What would my non-acceptance accomplish? It won't take back what they have done. That doesn't mean that I can't disapprove or be disappointed. But, if I do not accept my children and their choices, they will quickly not accept me and my teachings. We are called to forgive all men, how can we forgive without acceptance? How can we teach and be an influence for good without acceptance?

Without repentance there can be no atoning and forgiveness either. Christ accepts all who come to him, and all who ask for forgiveness, but not all that don't. The prodigal son returned and asked his fathers forgiveness he didn't return and ask for more money to go out partying again.

You could counter and state your keeping the door open for your child to return to the right ways but I could counter and state by not expressing disapproval he would never see the error of his ways. Then you could counter with...

It seems we have reached an impasse I will continue if you want but it is doubtful either will change thd other. But it was jnteresting

[jaxenro]

Do you think marriage can provide gay couples some of the same benefits as straight couples? As in greater stability, greater monogamy?

Truthfully I am not interested in building a smoother path to sin.

[Gray]

Truthfully I am not interested in building a smoother path to sin.

 

Well, we know it can provide much greater happiness than what you would call righteousness. Quality of life for gay people who marry is very good, and quite the opposite for those in the church who abstain from marriage or who marry the opposite sex. 

 

Aside from the issue of happiness, I'm not sure what you're saying? Are you saying you'd prefer a rougher path? Less commitment and monogamy? 

 

If we were talking straight unmarried people, wouldn't fewer partners be better than many? 

[california boy]

No I am refusing to participate in an act I consider immoral. You can keep tossing in red herring after red herring but the basic premise doesn't change. You simply don't seem to want to accept what I say at face value as meaning what I say.

Sorry but I am not tossing out any red herrings.  In fact quite the opposite.  You are stating that the same sex marriage is immoral, but you haven't been able to say why it is immoral.  As has been stated, whether a gay couple is living together or is married, makes zero difference.  According to Mormon belief, they are still living in sin since the church does not recognize the marriage.  Nothing changes concerning your sons "sins".   Whether you son is married or not, makes ZERO difference to the church and according to Mormon belief to God as well.  This can't be more clear.  Do you think it makes a difference to the church whether your son is married or not?

 

By you not attending the marriage, you are only making a political statement about the government recognizing gay marriage as being legal.  I understand you are against the government recognizing gay marriage.  But to put a political protest in front of your own relationship with your son feels just wrong to me.

 

That said, it is not that I don't accept your position, I am just having a difficult time understanding the reason to make such a political statement at your own sons wedding.  You certainly have the right to do so.  No one is questioning that.

[pogi]

Without repentance there can be no atoning and forgiveness either. Christ accepts all who come to him, and all who ask for forgiveness, but not all that don't. The prodigal son returned and asked his fathers forgiveness he didn't return and ask for more money to go out partying again.

You could counter and state your keeping the door open for your child to return to the right ways but I could counter and state by not expressing disapproval he would never see the error of his ways. Then you could counter with...

It seems we have reached an impasse I will continue if you want but it is doubtful either will change thd other. But it was jnteresting

 

I agree, it was interesting. 

 

In response to the underlined part above, the Lord said, "I will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  That was a commandment that we cannot keep if we cannot accept all men. 

 

I think the problem we have had is in your confusion of "acceptance" with "approval", which was evident from your very first post.   There is a big difference, but is easily and often confused.  Buddhism has a lot to teach the world about the principle of acceptance, and we need to be open to truth, no matter where it comes from. 

 

You seem to be confusing my position as evidenced from the bolded part of your quote above.  Do you see how that I can clearly disapprove of and teach/discipline my child while still accepting my child and his choices completely?  Again, you are confusing approval with acceptance. 

Edited March 17, 2014 by pogi

[jaxenro]

Sorry but I am not tossing out any red herrings.  In fact quite the opposite.  You are stating that the same sex marriage is immoral, but you haven't been able to say why it is immoral.  As has been stated, whether a gay couple is living together or is married, makes zero difference.  According to Mormon belief, they are still living in sin since the church does not recognize the marriage.  Nothing changes concerning your sons "sins".   Whether you son is married or not, makes ZERO difference to the church and according to Mormon belief to God as well.  This can't be more clear.  Do you think it makes a difference to the church whether your son is married or not?

 

By you not attending the marriage, you are only making a political statement about the government recognizing gay marriage as being legal.  I understand you are against the government recognizing gay marriage.  But to put a political protest in front of your own relationship with your son feels just wrong to me.

 

That said, it is not that I don't accept your position, I am just having a difficult time understanding the reason to make such a political statement at your own sons wedding.  You certainly have the right to do so.  No one is questioning that.

 

No it isn't a political statement unless you consider marriage a political act. Do you?

 

I consider those that attend the wedding to be participants in the ceremony. That, to me, is the historical position. The brides friends, the grooms friends, the different familes, all stand as witnesses to the marriage and place societies seal, or sanction, on the event.

 

What I am stating very plainly, over and over, is I would not participate in what I consider an immoral act, one that contravenes natures laws in such a manner. To me it is little different from engaging in the homosexual act itself or participating in a ceremony that sanctions that act.

 

Dinner, on the other hand, is dinner. It santifies no act except eating.

[Ahab]

I would draw the line when someone applies that scripture to a son or daughter. I remember a different story about a prodigal son who offended his father... I also remember the example of the Savior who accepts all sinners who come unto him, even in the midst of darkness and sin. Without acceptance there can be no atoning or forgiveness.

There would be no line for me in accepting what my children do. What would my non-acceptance accomplish? I won't take back what they have done. That doesn't mean that I can't disapprove or be disappointed. But, if I do not accept my children and their choices, they will quickly not accept me and my teachings. We are called to forgive all men, how can we forgive without acceptance?

Forgiving is not about accepting sinful behavior. Forgiving is about giving up or letting go of anger, even righteous anger, when others have shown that they don't value us or our feelings or the values that we stand for. It doesn't let others off the hook for their own bad behavior, though, because if they don't repent for the bad things they do they are still doing the bad things that they do which caused us to become angry in the first place, and even though we give up our anger when we forgive others we still may choose to seek justice or uphold a separation between the wicked and the righteous.

[california boy]

And those choices are not likelier to get easier. I cannot imagine missing a child's wedding, and I cannot imagine giving my tacit approval to a same sex marriage, official or not. 

For those who ask if it would be better for them to remain unmarried, I see zero difference, even if the marriage has the stamp of secular legality. And I do see a difference when a man and woman join in marriage. Sorry if this makes CB's head explode. 

 

No head exploding here.  I completely understand your point and I agree.  There is zero difference in the eyes of the church whether a gay couple is living together or married.  The church looks at both relationships as the same sin of homosexuality.  For a gay couple, being married does not make the sin worse or less.  And that is what I don't get about this position of not attending a gay wedding.  

 

As a father, even if I still held Mormon beliefs about homosexuality, I would MUCH rather have my son living in a committed relationship rather than having multiple partners.  Moving towards marriage would in my opinion be a better option if nothing else from a health and emotional point of view, even if I still considered homosexual relationships as being sinful.  

 

I personally see such hysteria around the political issue of gay marriage, that it can cloud our judgement as to what is sinful and what is not.  The marriage is not the sin.

[jaxenro]

I agree, it was interesting. 

 

In response to the underlined part above, the Lord said, "I will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  That was a commandment that we cannot keep if we cannot accept all men. 

 

I think the problem we have had is in your confusion of "acceptance" with "approval", which was evident from your very first post.   There is a big difference, but is easily and often confused.  Buddhism has a lot to teach the world about the principle of acceptance, and we need to be open to truth, no matter where it comes from. 

 

You seem to be confusing my position as evidenced from the bolded part of your quote above.  Do you see how that I can clearly disapprove of and teach/discipline my child while still accepting my child and his choices completely?  Again, you are confusing approval with acceptance. 

 

Yes and I would not even need to forgive my son there is nothing my children could do that needs forgiveness from me. I love them unconditionally. But I wound not join them in committing what I think is a sinful act which is the part I think you are missing.

 

And no I am not confused between acceptance and approval but I do think society is today.

 

And yes I fully understand and approve of your position, for you. It is one I think you prayerfully considered and would be prepared to defend it on judgment day, as would I mine. I understand the distinctions you draw and that they are right for you. For you to not attend would be the immoral act, for me to attend would. Yet in way both of us could be right. It isn't acceptance and approval we disagree on but attendance. You give a different meaning to attendance than I do

 

Can you also understand that in God's eyes each of us could be right? Only He knows what is in our heart, the costs this would bring to each of us, the anguish. Som of lifes test have no right answer, no clear cut wrong and right. They are learning experiences for each of us and each learns different lessons from the same lesson plan

[pogi]

Forgiving is not about accepting sinful behavior. 

 

Christ fully and completely accepted (which is different from approval) all of our sinful behavior in Gethsemane.  I don't know what it even means to not accept someone else's behavior.  How can you not accept it without being blind of it's reality?  Acceptance is nothing more than a compassionate acknowledgement of what is.  Without a compassionate acknowledgement, there can be no forgiveness, or repentance for that matter. 

 

All sinners need compassionate acknowledgement of their reality.  This is not to say that we should become principle-less door-mats.  Sinners will not and cannot turn to us without both acceptance and disapproval. 

Edited March 17, 2014 by pogi

[jaxenro]

No head exploding here.  I completely understand your point and I agree.  There is zero difference in the eyes of the church whether a gay couple is living together or married.  The church looks at both relationships as the same sin of homosexuality.  For a gay couple, being married does not make the sin worse or less.  And that is what I don't get about this position of not attending a gay wedding.  

 

As a father, even if I still held Mormon beliefs about homosexuality, I would MUCH rather have my son living in a committed relationship rather than having multiple partners.  Moving towards marriage would in my opinion be a better option if nothing else from a health and emotional point of view, even if I still considered homosexual relationships as being sinful.  

 

I personally see such hysteria around the political issue of gay marriage, that it can cloud our judgement as to what is sinful and what is not.  The marriage is not the sin.

 

No the marriage is not the sin it is meaningless from a LDS theological perspective. And my position was the same a year ago when I never had any intention of rejoining the LDS church.

 

I am opposed to SSM for many reasons. Personally I feel it contravenes natural law, makes a mockery of the concept of marriage, which is the natural pair bonding of two different sexes to form a union greater than the sum of it's parts, and is not a stable building block for a sound society. For those that disagree, fine, but don't make any claims it isn't true until at lest a few hundred years have passed and you have a weight of evidence to support you. I have a minimum of 5,000 years historical evidence to support my position.

 

What is so hard to understand that I would refuse to participate in a ceremony that I believe so strongly against. Maybe I spent too many years reading the classics, my neo classical heritage and things like The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons are too strong in me.

[california boy]

No it isn't a political statement unless you consider marriage a political act. Do you?

 

 

 

I think you are making it a political act by the fact that you seem to have a problem with how society views gay marriage.  

 

I consider those that attend the wedding to be participants in the ceremony. That, to me, is the historical position. The brides friends, the grooms friends, the different familes, all stand as witnesses to the marriage and place societies seal, or sanction, on the event.

 

 

 

Is there a middleground there at all?  Maybe not participate as a best man, witness, etc, but just be in attendance?

 

What I am stating very plainly, over and over, is I would not participate in what I consider an immoral act, one that contravenes natures laws in such a manner. To me it is little different from engaging in the homosexual act itself or participating in a ceremony that sanctions that act.

 

 

 

And this is the core of where I am trying to understand how you got this notion that the ceremony is the sin.  It certainly is nothing that the church teaches.  Attending a wedding is WAY different than engaging in homosexuality.  I am just interested in where you got the idea that there is little difference betweein attending a wedding and engaging in homosexuality.  Is this just your own idea or do you think the church teaches such things?  

Dinner, on the other hand, is dinner. It santifies no act except eating.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps a wedding is just a wedding.  Your son clearly knows that you disapprove of him choosing to share his life with someone he  loves and wants to commit to.  Whether you attend the wedding or not will not change that disapproval.

[pogi]

But I wound not join them in committing what I think is a sinful act which is the part I think you are missing.

 

This to me is your strongest argument.  However, it is simply a perspective difference that we have on what attendance means.  Attendance/non-attendance is all about the message your son receives.  I would rather send mixed messages about my approval of his marriage, then I would about my relationship with him.  I am thinking about the long-term relational consequences over the short term statement.  I could easily explain any confusion about my approval/disapproval of his marriage, I could not so easily explain any confusion about my relationship with him. 

[jaxenro]

"I think you are making it a political act by the fact that you seem to have a problem with how society views gay marriage"

 

No I think you are making my refusal to attend a political act. For me it is just what I said it was.

 

"Is there a middleground there at all?  Maybe not participate as a best man, witness, etc, but just be in attendance?"

 

I must have said this at least four times now. In my view, my historical understanding of marriage ceremonies, all who attend are participants. I'm not sure how to state that any clearer. Maybe like this:

 

In my view, my historical understanding of marriage ceremonies, all who attend are participants

 

"And this is the core of where I am trying to understand how you got this notion that the ceremony is the sin"

 

If, as I believe, all who attend are participants in sanctioning the marriage, then my participation would be sanctioning an act I consider immoral. Because I consider homosexual marriage to be contravening natural law and not a building block for a sound society. Is that really that hard to understand?

 

"Perhaps a wedding is just a wedding.  Your son clearly knows that you disapprove of him choosing to share his life with someone he  loves and wants to commit to.  Whether you attend the wedding or not will not change that disapproval."

 

My son is not gay (just in case he ever reads this) this is only a hyopthetical
 

[jaxenro]

This to me is your strongest argument.  However, it is simply a perspective difference that we have on what attendance means.  Attendance/non-attendance is all about the message your son receives.  I would rather send mixed messages about my approval of his marriage, then I would about my relationship with him.  I am thinking about the long-term relational consequences over the short term statement.  I could easily explain any confusion about my approval/disapproval of his marriage, I could not so easily explain any confusion about my relationship with him. 

 

As I said I fully understand and respect your position, for you to do otherwise would be immoral, for you. But each of us must live life as we see it and deal with the consequences of our actions.

 

Fortunately I will probably never face this decision in fact I consider it close to impossible but I am sure there are other equally hard ones in the future.

[jaxenro]

In my view, my historical understanding of marriage ceremonies, all who attend are participants

 

Maybe this would help make my position clearer. I would also refuse to attend my son's OSM (opposite sex marriage) ceremony if for some reason I felt the match contravened natural law, if he ever does decide to marry (I think he is having too much fun single).

[Gray]

There are many ways to express your disapproval. Some people do this by throwing their gay children out on the street. Some do it by not attending important events like weddings. But disapproval can be expressed another way - verbally - without the need for doing any of the other things.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Gray

[jaxenro]

It isn't a question of approve or disapprove but participate or not participate

Am I speaking Greek? Is this Julius Caesar?

I would not not attend to show disapproval I would not attend in order not to participate