Same Sex Marriage

[The Nehor]

They believed in free love, not marriage/commitment.  So I don't really see a comparison.

 

But, does there need to be a single ideal for society?

Yes, otherwise how will I know who must be shunned, shamed, and belittled for being inferior?

[why me]

I think that was also the logic that was being applied in the early years of our church:  Brigham Young married 55 women... some for time, some for eternity, some who were married to other men, and at least one who was sealed to Joseph Smith but was still married and lived with her other husband.  He only lived with 16 of his wives and had 57 children.

 

Our society seemed to survive taking marriage outside of the man/woman paradigm.

However, if one would make this normal and put it throughout society and not just  chosen few, I don't think that it would work very well. We are talking about a norm and not a select few who were called.

[Daniel2]

While I personally believe that polygamous marriage should be legal, your statement above is not true, WhyMe.

My support of polygamous marriage is far more the result of my LDS heritage and polygamist ancestry than it is the result of my support for same-sex couples.

Most same-sex marriage supporters I know disagree with polygamous marriage rights, and there are solid legal arguments for their distinctions, as explicitly detailed in the link to the recent amicus brief filed in the VA case by those states that recognize same-sex marriage, which I shared in the thread dealing with same-sex marriage in the "News" section of the board.

Here's the post where I shared the link in the other thread:

Wow. The following link is to an amicus brief just filed in the VA case by the states that currently recognize same-sex marriage. It directly addresses sooooooo many arguments made on this board--and by the state of Utah---about the purpose and regulation of marriage, and how it serves the need of children of both opposite and same sex parents. It is FANTASTIC:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/219472606?width=360#fullscreen

If you click on th link in the above post, pages 27 to 29 of the brief itself (titled "C. Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry Does Not Threaten the States' Ability To Regulate Marriage") specifically outlines how the Amici states can support marriage equality, but not for polygamous, underage, or incestuous marriages. Why Me , I highly recommend you read it. Great stuff.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Daniel2

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't have a personal problem with polygamy other than not wanting for myself. IF it is asked of me in Heaven. I'll worry about it then. I believe it was inspired for the reasons given To raise up righteous seed. I also believe discontinuing it was inspired.

 

I seriously doubt that BY made it a requirement when as prophet and governor he granted divorces out like candy. Exaltation isn't obtainable in this life.

 

I don't believe Brian Hales establishes Church doctrine. I don't believe that women will outnumber men in Heaven.

 

It doesn't make sense for BY times or for ours.

I think that's fine if you want to believe that. I certainly have a lot of respect for the men and women who followed their faith and attempted to live what they thought was God's law.

 

Again, though, what makes sense to you is not a valid way of determining what happened historically. 

[california boy]

I suspect that at the heart of the gay marriage movement has been the effort to get society to accept the normalization of homosexuality in general. Other than a symbolic victory, the gay rights movement has not gained anything they didn't already have before. I doubt we will see much change in the way of greater long-term monogamous commitment in homosexual relationships, legally married or not.

Time could prove me wrong, but at this point, I don't expect it.

I am sure the sole reason you married your wife is so that society would accept you having sex.  So of course, you would assume that the sole reason gay couples marry is for society to accept them having sex.  Yeah this is what marriage is all about.  Heck, I don't even understand why we even bother to make marriage legal for anyone.  We should all just get over the idea that you have to be married to have sex.  There is no real legitimate reason for anyone to need to get married other than social acceptance of their sex.  I mean you could have all of the benefits of marriage with your wife if you just went to a lawyer and drew up the legal documentations.  I can now certainly understand why you decided to marry your wife.  It was all about having your sexual relationship accepted by society.  Nothing more.  

 

Honestly Scott Lloyd, sometimes I find your distorted views on gays to be disgusting.  Just because a person is gay does not stop them from being human.  Is it so far from your realm of consideration that gay couples may very well want to get married for ALL of the reasons you wanted to get married??

[The Nehor]

I am sure the sole reason you married your wife is so that society would accept you having sex.  So of course, you would assume that the sole reason gay couples marry is for society to accept them having sex.  Yeah this is what marriage is all about.  Heck, I don't even understand why we even bother to make marriage legal for anyone.  We should all just get over the idea that you have to be married to have sex.  There is no real legitimate reason for anyone to need to get married other than social acceptance of their sex.  I mean you could have all of the benefits of marriage with your wife if you just went to a lawyer and drew up the legal documentations.  I can now certainly understand why you decided to marry your wife.  It was all about having your sexual relationship accepted by society.  Nothing more.  

 

Honestly Scott Lloyd, sometimes I find your distorted views on gays to be disgusting.  Just because a person is gay does not stop them from being human.  Is it so far from your realm of consideration that gay couples may very well want to get married for ALL of the reasons you wanted to get married??

Wait.......are you suggesting that gay people have souls?

[rockpond]

Just because a person is gay does not stop them from being human.  Is it so far from your realm of consideration that gay couples may very well want to get married for ALL of the reasons you wanted to get married??

 

This!  +1.  Amen.  And all that.

[california boy]

We are not speaking about religious rights but about marriage. I don't think that it benefits society at all to allow anarchy in marriage relations. I don't think that it helps society at all if 3 women decide to marry and have a child as one family. Nor do I think that it benefits society to have 3 men marry one another and adopt a child. Nor do I think that it is good for a woman to have one husband and two wives. The enhancement of individual rights can hamper society and not enhance it.

So I take it you are in complete agreement with the Supreme Court when they ruled that the church could no longer practice polygamy.    

 

Sorry, but my church roots go all the way back actually before the church was even organized.  I have never agreed that the Supreme court had the right to deny the church the right to practice polygamy.  Have you ever read the testimony of Parley P. Pratt before the Congress?  I think he makes a pretty good case.  How can polygamy be wrong in the site of God if He spoke face to face with Abraham?  Seems like God was ok with it.  Yet the state can force a church to not embrace it's doctrine?  What next?  Are you ok with the state forcing churches to perform gay marriages?  I certainly am not.

[The Nehor]

Would it be a fair compromise to have gay polygamy?

[Scott Lloyd]

Honestly Scott Lloyd, sometimes I find your distorted views on gays to be disgusting. 

Well, there's a lot that has gone on in the past year or so with regard to redefinition of marriage, blurring the definition of family and the normalization of sexual perversion that has disgusted me, but rather than turn this into protracted, ***-for-tat gripe session, I think I'll just bow out now and let you play to your cheering section.

[JLHPROF]

 There is no real legitimate reason for anyone to need to get married other than social acceptance of their sex.

 

 

Absolutely not true, unless you add the word "legally" before married.

For me personally as a religious person I chose to marry 1. because I wanted to and 2. because God commanded it.

What society thinks of my marriage (or sexual relations) was not a driving factor and means nothing.

[rockpond]

Well, there's a lot that has gone on in the past year or so with regard to redefinition of marriage, blurring the definition of family and the normalization of sexual perversion that has disgusted me, but rather than turn this into protracted, ***-for-tat gripe session, I think I'll just bow out now and let you play to your cheering section.

 

"Redefinition of Marriage" -- insisting that it be based on love and not the right pair of genitals.

 

"Blurring the definition of family" -- allowing non-biological parents to love, care for, and raise children.

 

"Normalization of sexual perversion" -- realizing that God created gay people and may not want them to live lives of solitude and loneliness.

[JLHPROF]

"Redefinition of Marriage" -- insisting that it be based on love and not the right pair of genitals.

 

"Blurring the definition of family" -- allowing non-biological parents to love, care for, and raise children.

 

"Normalization of sexual perversion" -- realizing that God created gay people and may not want them to live lives of solitude and loneliness.

 

Or perhaps "changing of standards to make ourselves happy regardless of what is actually right".

Eventually we will realize that whatever the topic (gay marriage, women & the priesthood, paying tithing) the position that makes us comfortable, brings the most happiness, or is most popular in society may NOT be what God wants or the way eternity operates.

 

We (and I definitely include myself in this) need to start putting aside what WE want or our own comfort.  All that matters on any subject is what God wants according to His revealed word.  (Now if you don't believe in God or in his words then of course you can support whatever makes you happy).

[Scott Lloyd]

I realize I said I'm done here, but I don't want to leave without posting this link which bears out my understanding about the prevalence of promiscuity within the gay culture and lifestyle.

 

A couple of highlights:

 

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”¹ Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.² By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.³

 

 

And this:

 

The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.⁹ That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.¹⁰ This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

 

 

Also:

 

 

Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.¹¹ The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.¹² A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.¹³ As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.¹⁴ Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”¹⁵

A 2010 CDC data analysis reveals that the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM (men who have sex with men) is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women. ¹⁶[insert reference 10 from Male Homosexual Behavior] Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

 

[rockpond]

Or perhaps "changing of standards to make ourselves happy regardless of what is actually right".

Eventually we will realize that whatever the topic (gay marriage, women & the priesthood, paying tithing) the position that makes us comfortable, brings the most happiness, or is most popular in society may NOT be what God wants or the way eternity operates.

We (and I definitely include myself in this) need to start putting aside what WE want or our own comfort. All that matters on any subject is what God wants according to His revealed word. (Now if you don't believe in God or in his words then of course you can support whatever makes you happy).

I completely agree... God's revealed truth is all that matters.

[rockpond]

I realize I said I'm done here, but I don't want to leave without posting this link which bears out my understanding about the prevalence of promiscuity within the gay culture and lifestyle.

A couple of highlights:

And this:

Also:

So because they are more promiscuous we shouldn't allow them to enter into committed, monogamous, legally-recognized marriages like straight people? That's like saying that we can't let overweight people join Weight Watchers cause the eat too much.

For decades we (society) have kicked homosexuals out of churches, told them that they are an abomination in the eyes of God, and deemed them unworthy of the bonds of marriage... What would you expect? Did you think that would create a community of religious, monogamous, married homosexuals?

If our religion, our church, and our faith community have power than we must expect that those who are pushed to the outside would, of course, exist in a realm of different/lower standards.

Ask yourself: Where would we be now had churches been teaching for the past 50+ years that our gay/lesbian brothers/sisters could marry and be a part of our belief system.

[JLHPROF]

I completely agree... God's revealed truth is all that matters.

 

And what, you don't think He has been pretty clear on homosexuality being sinful?  Or on what constitutes an acceptable marriage?

[rockpond]

And what, you don't think He has been pretty clear on homosexuality being sinful? Or on what constitutes an acceptable marriage?

Nope.

[rodheadlee]

Nope? Are you serious?

[rockpond]

Nope? Are you serious?

Yes

[JLHPROF]

Nope.

 

Well, He has.  Unless you don't believe scriptures (both OT&NT, words of the prophets, and the law of Chastity in the temple.

 

If you don't believe any of these then I guess you can believe God is ok with anything.

[rockpond]

Well, He has. Unless you don't believe scriptures (both OT&NT, words of the prophets, and the law of Chastity in the temple.

If you don't believe any of these then I guess you can believe God is ok with anything.

The temple definition doesn't mention homosexuality.

OT only refers to homosexuality in the context of the mosaic law which we do not follow.

NT has a couple references by Paul that aren't abundantly clear. Nothing said by Christ himself as recorded in the NT.

Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are all silent on the issue of homosexuality. Remember... That's the book that contains the fullness of the Gospel, the most correct book on Earth... No mention of homosexuality.

[JLHPROF]

The temple definition doesn't mention homosexuality.

OT only refers to homosexuality in the context of the mosaic law which we do not follow.

NT has a couple references by Paul that aren't abundantly clear. Nothing said by Christ himself as recorded in the NT.

Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are all silent on the issue of homosexuality. Remember... That's the book that contains the fullness of the Gospel, the most correct book on Earth... No mention of homosexuality.

 

The temple defines the ONLY acceptable sexual relations for those under the law of chastity.  And that ceremony and its covenants were revealed from God.

 

The OT may be under the Mosaic law, but that was given to man by God.

 

Paul was an apostle, and therefore a prophet of God.

 

Saying that the BOM/D&C/PoGP are all silent so it must be ok is like the child saying "well, you didn't tell me I couldn't have Ice Cream for dinner".  The absence of God EVER condoning a homosexual relationship is as valid as the absence of a revelation forbidding it as a justification.

 

Basically, God has been involved in EVERY LDS religious argument against homosexuality.  God has NEVER been seen to support homosexuality in any form.  Also, I believe that the relationship goes against eternal principle in that it cannot produce life or the continuance of generations - the very purpose of existence according to God.

Edited April 25, 2014 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

The temple defines the ONLY acceptable sexual relations for those under the law of chastity. And that ceremony and its covenants were revealed from God.

The OT may be under the Mosaic law, but that was given to man by God.

Paul was an apostle, and therefore a prophet of God.

Saying that the BOM/D&C/PoGP are all silent so it must be ok is like the child saying "well, you didn't tell me I couldn't have Ice Cream for dinner". The absence of God EVER condoning a homosexual relationship is as valid as the absence of a revelation forbidding it as a justification.

Basically, God has been involved in EVERY LDS religious argument against homosexuality. God has NEVER been seen to support homosexuality in any form. Also, I believe that the relationship goes against eternal principle in that it cannot produce life or the continuance of generations - the very purpose of existence according to God.

The temple ceremony defines the law of chastity as sexual relations only with your legal and lawful spouse.

I don't disagree that the mosaic law came from God, but so did the instruction to stop living it.

You asked me if I "think He has been pretty clear on homosexuality being sinful?" He hasn't. Now you are changing the question and saying: "well, he's never said it was okay!"

The fact that our LDS specific scriptures do not condemn homosexuality is significant especially since we claim the Book of Mormon to contain the fullness of the gospel.

I also find it significant that Joseph Smith corrected the prevailing interpretations and taught that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality.

The prophets have condemned homosexuality but have never claimed any revelation to back up those positions.

So, again, to the original question: no, God has not been "pretty clear" on homosexuality being sinful.

[rockpond]

Also, I believe that the relationship goes against eternal principle in that it cannot produce life or the continuance of generations - the very purpose of existence according to God.

Men are that they might have joy. That's the very purpose of existence.