Same Sex Marriage

[california boy]

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.

 

I know perfectly well that you are not going to change your mind on this issue.  But I do want to comment on it anyway.  There is a lot of discussion on this board clearly stating that not everything a prophet says comes from God.  Many prophets have spoken their opinions.  This is not limited to modern day prophets.  We also believe that ancient prophets often spoke their opinions.  The often quoted words of Paul comes from letters written to various branches in the church.  We know that not every letter written by a prophet is dictated by God nor contains His will.  You certainly DO NOT accept every word that Paul wrote as being doctrine.  Nor do you believe that every part of the mosaic law should be followed today. Yet on this one subject, you seem to be adamant.  

 

I could find significantly more quotes from the Bible condemning straight sex.  The ALL occur outside the bonds of marriage.  The law of chastity as revealed is about sexual relations within the bonds of marriage.  It certainly does not condemn ALL sex between a man and a woman.  There is no revelation anywhere, even in the Bible that condemns sex for homosexuals inside the bonds of marriage.  

 

Your relationship with your wife is far more than just about sex.  Can you even imagine reaching the Celestial Kingdom without a helpmate?  Do you feel there is important reasons why GOD himself, said, "It is not good for man to be alone." 

 

Your mind is clearly made up on this subject.  My words will not open up the possibility that perhaps God wants His gay children to also be able to marry and have a helpmate in this life.  But to say that your idea came from God when there is absolutely NO indication that ANYONE throughout time has received a revelation from God on this matter is not supported by scripture nor is it supported by any modern claim to revelation from God.  What is recorded in the Bible are the words from God himself.  "It is not good for man to be alone."  Yet you have no problem dismissing these actual words from God as being irrelevant to His gay children.  

[why me]

Would it be a fair compromise to have gay polygamy?

Which is by the way the reason for the thread. By allowing same sex marriage one opens up a whole new can of peas. Gay Polygamy is one just one can. Once gay marriage is allowed, it then becomes a issue of equal rights for any other special interest group pressuring for their right to marry whoever or whatever they want to marry.

[why me]

 

Your mind is clearly made up on this subject.  My words will not open up the possibility that perhaps God wants His gay children to also be able to marry and have a helpmate in this life.  But to say that your idea came from God when there is absolutely NO indication that ANYONE throughout time has received a revelation from God on this matter is not supported by scripture nor is it supported by any modern claim to revelation from God.  What is recorded in the Bible are the words from God himself.  "It is not good for man to be alone."  Yet you have no problem dismissing these actual words from God as being irrelevant to His gay children.  

However, centuries of tradition can not be overturned by a speical interest group who now believe that the population has been preped and primed for gay marriage through television sitcoms. The idea, since adam and eve, that marriage is between a man and a woman has been ingrained in the christian mind because of adam and eve. God created man and woman to compliment each other in family life and with life in general.

[Storm Rider]

However, centuries of tradition can not be overturned by a speical interest group who now believe that the population has been preped and primed for gay marriage through television sitcoms. The idea, since adam and eve, that marriage is between a man and a woman has been ingrained in the christian mind because of adam and eve. God created man and woman to compliment each other in family life and with life in general.

 

Man is not meant to be alone, but the purpose of the union of man and woman was progeny - it was not to a single relationship; to go and multiply.  

 

From a strictly biological perspective the gay relationship is wrong; the human body does not work that way; it was not made for that purpose.  This does not negate that two individuals, regardless of gender, can love one another intensely.  However, love of two individuals does not equate to a "let's get married".  

 

At the end of the day SSM is not reallly about marriage and it is all about obtaining social acceptance for that which has been considered immoral at best and perversion at worst.  

[california boy]

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:

And just to be fair, I am sure your next post will be commentary on straight couples who are not married and have been kicked out of their churches and often shunned by their families.  

 

Is this about being gay? Or is this about telling an entire minority that they are going to hell because of who they are attracted to and then not allowing them ANY way to have relationships that you and their churches approve of.  EVERY study that you can find on this subject has ALWAYS showed that those who are not married have significantly higher numbers of sexual partners and sexually transmitted disease.  

[halconero]

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.

 

Hmmmmm....a careful reading of the Pearl of Great Price and its subsequent translations into other languages points to a glaring homosexual initiation ritual being practiced by members of an ancient murder cult. I'd add though that heterosexual initiation rituals would be just as sinful within that context.

[california boy]

However, centuries of tradition can not be overturned by a speical interest group who now believe that the population has been preped and primed for gay marriage through television sitcoms. The idea, since adam and eve, that marriage is between a man and a woman has been ingrained in the christian mind because of adam and eve. God created man and woman to compliment each other in family life and with life in general.

 

Oh I don't know if that is true.  Centuries of tradition of god approving of slavery was overturned by the start of a relative small group of abolitionists.  Their numbers grew until they too became the majority.  It only took 5,950 years to correct.  Or do you still believe that slavery is ok as outlined in the Old Testiment?  If not, what made you change your mind?  

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

I have never heard of gay people being unworthy of marriage; that seems like a stretch or a distortion of motivations.  The issue is that a form of sexuality that has been unacceptable for thousands of years, not the last 50 years or 200 years, but for thousands of years is now somehow acceptable.  It is not biological normal; in fact, there is no biological reason for such relationships. 

 

Ask yourself:  what would society be like if everyone was committed to obeying all the teachings of Christ - they were moral, honest, charitable, faithful, did not abuse themselves or others, had a eye single to the glory of God.  

[rodheadlee]

Yes

"This past month the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve published a letter to leaders of the Church across the world. In part it read: “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review … the doctrine contained in ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World.’”⁷

 

 

^{What is not clear about that? It's a quote from General Conference by Elder Andersen.}

Edited April 25, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Daniel2]

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.

Fantastic, insightful, thoughtful post, Rock. Thanks for sharing.

[Gray]

Hmmmmm....a careful reading of the Pearl of Great Price and its subsequent translations into other languages points to a glaring homosexual initiation ritual being practiced by members of an ancient murder cult. I'd add though that heterosexual initiation rituals would be just as sinful within that context.

 

I think that's severely eisegetical 

[Gray]

"This past month the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve published a letter to leaders of the Church across the world. In part it read: “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review … the doctrine contained in ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World.’”⁷

 

 

^{What is not clear about that? It's a quote from General Conference by Elder Andersen.}

 

I think it's clear what the FP & QoT think. What is not clear is whether or not this constitutes their interpretation of scripture & tradition or if this is to be taken as some kind of revelation 

[The Nehor]

Hmmmmm....a careful reading of the Pearl of Great Price and its subsequent translations into other languages points to a glaring homosexual initiation ritual being practiced by members of an ancient murder cult. I'd add though that heterosexual initiation rituals would be just as sinful within that context.

That is a radical interpretation of the text.

[halconero]

I think that's severely eisegetical 

 

Maybe. Sex cults (homosexual and heterosexual) go way back. Considering other translations of the Pearl of Great Price it's not even a stretch, but obvious. The French and Spanish versions, in which I'm fluent, use sexual euphemisms in the relevant passage.

 

As for my eisegetical presuppositions, you know little of my doctrinal biases, my sexuality, my stand on same-sex marriage, or my views on scripture, both ancient and modern. You're being somewhat eisegetical about my eisegeticality.

Edited April 25, 2014 by halconero

[halconero]

That is a radical interpretation of the text.

 

Radical, and possibly not that far off considering subsequent translations. I'm not making a definitive statement, and am open to being wrong, but a definitive statement that homosexuality is not mentioned in any of the Restorationist texts is also somewhat radical.

[Gray]

Maybe. Sex cults (homosexual and heterosexual) go way back. Considering other translations of the Pearl of Great Price it's not even a stretch, but obvious. The French and Spanish versions, in which I'm fluent, use sexual euphemisms in the relevant passage. So does the Greek, but I'm more literate in the ancient written language than the modern.

 

As for my eisegetical presuppositions, you know little of my doctrinal biases, my sexuality, my stand on same-sex marriage, or my views on scripture, both ancient and modern. You're being somewhat eisegetical about my eisegeticality.

 

I'm just saying, you can't get that strictly from the text itself, and there is no other context to give you that meaning either. I don't think I've read anything into your post - if you have something else important to say about it, it would be eisegetical of me to speculate what that might be

 

Even if your interpretation were true, it wouldn't have much bearing on monogamous gay marriage, any more than heterosexual sex cults would have bearing on monogamous opposite sex marriage

[Gray]

Radical, and possibly not that far off considering subsequent translations. I'm not making a definitive statement, and am open to being wrong, but a definitive statement that homosexuality is not mentioned in any of the Restorationist texts is also somewhat radical.

 

Word choice in foreign language translations is largely dependent upon the understanding of the translators - I'm not sure what they can tell us about the original text.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

We need to be very careful when we start saying God told me to do this to you.

[halconero]

I'm just saying, you can't get that strictly from the text itself, and there is no other context to give you that meaning either. I don't think I've read anything into your post - if you have something else important to say about it, it would be eisegetical of me to speculate what that might be

 

Even if your interpretation were true, it wouldn't have much bearing on monogamous gay marriage, any more than heterosexual sex cults would have bearing on monogamous opposite sex marriage

 

I agree. Translator bias is important, and might not reflect the original intent. I'm mostly drawing on my studies in school on ancient ritual practices of various cults, which the one described in the Pearl of Great Price clearly is.

 

I also stated in my first post on the matter that heterosexual sex cults would have just as much bearing on the topic as homosexual ones. Both are evil. I was more objecting to the conclusive statement that homosexual activity isn't mentioned anywhere in the Restorationist works. It still might not be...but such is not definitive.

[Walden]

By giving gay couples the right to marry we have opened a pandora's box of possibilties as shown in the link. Do three women marrying hamper my rights? No. But is it good for society to have such marriages. Perhaps not. Likewise, I don't think that if a brother and sister would gain the right to marry would matter to me as an individual but as a society, I don't think that it would be good. Likewise, if I married two women and a man and had children by the two women and adopted a child for the man and I would hinder anyone's rights. But, would it be good for a society ...perhaps not.

So you would agree that your individual rights and liberties have not been trampled upon by gay marriage; at least we agree on that.

 

Extrapolating the link provided by the OP into a statement on the direction of marriage in this country is dubious in the least, and disingenous at it's best. Situations such as the one referenced in the story are outliers and thus not truly reflective of the overwhleming majority (greater than 99.99%) of the actual population.

 

Anyone can find a link on the internet of something odd, and then distort the content to prove a point. Case in point, here is a short list of very odd "marriages" that have occurred, most of them long before gay marriage was recognized....http://amazingbeautifulworld.com/amazing-world/10-most-weirdest-marriages-in-the-world/

 

Do these outliers somehow make a comment on the state of marriage in general, or the direction that marriage is headed (remember, most occurred long before gay marriage was even a blip on the radar)? No, of course they don't, but someone trying to make an argument against the state of marriage could use it as ammunition to argue against the "perverse" state of marriage and the direction that it is headed, even though the referenced situations do not in fact represent the true state of marriage at all.

 

And they would be foolish to do so. That is the same thing that some people here are doing with regard to this article.

[rockpond]

Hmmmmm....a careful reading of the Pearl of Great Price and its subsequent translations into other languages points to a glaring homosexual initiation ritual being practiced by members of an ancient murder cult. I'd add though that heterosexual initiation rituals would be just as sinful within that context.

 

What's the reference?

[rockpond]

"This past month the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve published a letter to leaders of the Church across the world. In part it read: “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review … the doctrine contained in ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World.’”⁷

 

 

^{What is not clear about that? It's a quote from General Conference by Elder Andersen.}

 

Does everything spoken in general conference represent revelation from God?

[Daniel2]

Why Me,

Here’s the portion of the Amici State’s brief that refutes your claim that same-sex marriage supporters must support polygamous marriage.

The states that filed the brief include: Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

I’ve taken the time to type it up, because I think it’s worth quoting as part of this discussion (wherefore, inasmuch I have typed it up by mine own hand, if there be errors, they are the errors of man, not the brief, therefore, condemn not the things of the Amici states... ):

C. Allowing Same-Sex Couples To Marry Does Not Threaten The States’ Ability to Regulate Marriage

It is untrue that it will become virtually impossible for States to limit entry to marriage in any meaningful way if the Constitution obliges them to license same-sex marriages. Rather, as Loving instructs, States simply may not circumscribe access to marriage, and thus restrict a fundamental right, based on a personal trait that itself has no bearing on one’s qualifications for marriage. States can otherwise continue to exercise their sovereign power to regulate marriage.

In Loving, the Supreme Court characterized Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws as “rest[ing] solely upon distinctions drawn according to race,” and proscribing “generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different race.” Virginia’s current marriage laws similarly restrict the right to marry by drawing distinctions according to gender (and, implicitly, sexual orientation) and using that personal characteristic to define an appropriate category of marital partners. [27. It is a well-established practice to apply heightened scrutiny to disparate treatment based on personal characteristics that typically bear no relationship to an individual’s ability to contribute to society. (Citations omitted). Although Amici States contend that sexual orientation discrimination should be subject to heightened scrutiny…it is not necessary to accept that Virginia’s laws involve suspect classifications for purposes of this analysis. These laws define eligibility based on a personal characteristic unrelated to one’s qualification for marriage (i.e., ability to consent or current marital status).] When viewed this way, the suggestion that the argument in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage “contains no limiting principle for excluding other groupings of individuals,” is clearly wrong.

Applying this principle does not result in all groupings of adults having an equal claim to marriage. States limit marriage based on other interests. For example, to further the interest of maintaining the mutuality of obligations between spouses, States may continue to lawfully limit the number of spouses one may have at any given time. Unlike race or gender, marital status is not an inherent trait, but rather a legal status indicating the existence (or not) of a marital contract, the presence of which renders a person temporarily ineligible to enter into additional marital contracts. States similarly may continue to lawfully prohibit marriage between certain relatives in order to guard against a variety of public health outcomes. Consanguinity itself is not a personal trait, but rather defines the nature of the relationship between particular individuals and thus exists only when an individual is considered in relation to others. [28. States may preclude marriages between close relatives, even those incapable of procreating with each other (Schaefer Br. 38-39), due to the possibility of exploitation, whether economic or otherwise.] Finally, in order to protect children against abuse and coercion, States may regulate entry into marriage by establishing an age of consent. [29. For similar reasons, States may regulate entry into marriage based on mental capacity because that bears upon an individual’s ability to consent.] Likewise, age is not an intrinsic trait, as it changes continually and the restriction is therefore temporary. Thus, even after gender is removed from consideration, other state regulations continue to advance important governmental interests and remain valid.

Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that the speculated negative consequences of allowing same-sex couples to wed will come to pass. Instead, the laws of Virginia prevent gays and lesbians from fully realizing what the Supreme Court described as “one of the vial personal rights and essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. This result is in clear conflict with our Constitution.

[Pgs 27-29, some citations omitted, others incorporated]

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

I’d be curious to hear your (and others’) response to the above explanation.

Daniel

Edited April 25, 2014 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Does everything spoken in general conference represent revelation from God?

 

No. However that fact doesn't support idea that nothing said represents revelation from God.

[rockpond]

No. However that fact doesn't support idea that nothing said represents revelation from God.

 

Agreed.