The Recent Change In My View Of Homosexual Marriage

[TOmNossor]

I hope the title gets a few folks to read here, but I have moved from following the prophet to being more comfortable following the prophet and I want to open my reasons up for consideration / criticism.

 

My old position was that I could see the strengths of both sides of this question, but neither side was obviously correct.  With this understanding, following the prophet was easily the most rational decision.  No aspect of following the prophet has resulted in me becoming a worse person to my knowledge so ....

My new position is brought on by recognition of the world in which I live and a knowledge that it is wrong, coupled with how this world has impacted me.

 

In short, sex exists for the purpose of binding together husband and wife into a stable family lead by a mother and a father which then brings forth and nurtures children.  This explains the unitive effect of sex AND the procreative effect of sex.  This explains why sex outside of marriage is wrong.  This explains why homosexual sex is wrong.  This explains why pornography is wrong.  This explains why movies and commercials that focus on sex are wrong.  This explains a lot.

 

Now for more detail:

 

SSM: Same-Sex Mariage.

SSA: Same-Sex Attraction.

I have thought about SSM and SSA a great deal. 

Some pro-SSM thoughts

• I think "loving one another" is a higher calling then "multiply and replenish the earth" and I think same sex folks can and do love one another.  I also know that some folks biologically cannot have children. 
• I think that there are biological and genetic roots (though I am unconvinced they are completely causal) for same sex attraction. 
• I think that those who have same sex attractions did not choose to have same sex attraction any more than I choose to have opposite sex attractions.  I would find it somewhat difficult to live in a world that asked me to marry a man (and have sex with him) so I can appreciate that those with SSA might find it somewhat to horribly difficult to be asked to marry the opposite sex.

Some anti-SSM thoughts

• Secular society is served by the continuance of the species through the production of children.  SS marriage does not inherently produce children.
• Men and woman are not the same.  A family with a man and a woman at its head will provide things a family with two same sex partners at its head is unlikely to.
• There are obvious physiological reasons that men and woman partner absent in same sex partnering.

 

When it was all said and done, as I, TOm, approached this question, I could not determine an obvious answer.  The prophet is on the tower and perhaps he would see farther than I could.

 

 

 

 

Some more info:

• Younger folks are much less opposed to SSM than older folks.  My son is set to leave on his mission in about 6 months.  He doesn't have a problem with SSM the way my wife's parents do.
• The society in which I circulate has no problem with homosexual relations/marriage.  I have long said that the surest cure to racism is travel (this means getting to know those who you might be tempted to be prejudice against).  Those who know gay folks are less likely to be opposed to SSM.
• Time is on the side of those who support SSM.  Both because the young are less opposed to SSM AND because society in general becomes less opposed to SSM.  The "normalizing" of homosexual relations is happening.

 

 

 

But, I said I changed, so what changed for me?

I was listening to a discussion SSM and the speaker commented on why SSM is being supported more and opposed less.  The point was made that our culture does not view sex in a way that allows consistency for those who oppose SSM.  Those who participate in homosexual relations receive from it what society tells us we get from sex.  They enjoy it.  At a higher level they can (and do in some cases) also enjoy the unitive effect of sex in their homosexual sex.  Sex removed from its purpose, " binding together husband and wife into a stable family lead by a mother and a father which then brings forth and nurtures children," results in few consistent ways to distinguish homosexual sex for those with SSA from heterosexual sex for those without SSA. 

As I thought about this it seemed to become clear that my neutrality with respect to SSM was likely due to the sex-fueled world in which I live.  Sex is used to sell me products.  Sex is used to entertain me.  Sex is part of the environment in my engineering firm in ways that it should not be.  The place where sex belongs is less evident in my culture because righteous married couples hold their sex sacred and don't talk about it much. 

I have heard stories from the past (generally) where "sheltered" youth experienced some anxiety as they moved from "sex is evil" to "sex with my spouse is beautiful."  Such has never been part of my world and I don't want this for my children, but I am sure that the cultural messages about sex are a large part of my life and the life of my children.  I lean toward the idea that the anxiety might be the lesser (much lesser) of two wrongs.

 

The speaker went on to say that to speak against SSM consistently was to condemn oneself and ones actions.  Few are willing to do this AND intelligent thoughtful folks recognize that this is involved in speaking against SSM.  So, let me say this, I am now more convinced that SSM is wrong.  I fully acknowledge that the sex that sold me products last week is wrong, I am a sinner.  I fully acknowledge the sex that I viewed on TV last week for entertainment is wrong, I am a sinner.  I fully acknowledge many more things that I think I shall not mention on a discussion board, I am a sinner.  But, I am of the opinion that sex within a committed marriage is right and beautiful and sex within a homosexual relation is not appropriate.

 

Now, let me soften this message just a little.  I have a beam in my eye and thus I do not crusade against those who embrace homosexual sex as individuals.  I think my past and perhaps current sexual sins are more separative (their effect upon me is that I withdraw from God) than are the present actions of many homosexuals.  I think such is true in general as Christian society (and God) tells the person without SSA that they may live their sexuality in a committed marriage, but Christian society (often) (and God) tells the person with SSA that they cannot live their sexuality.  So those with SSA who live their sexuality are sinning, but while sin is sin, their struggles are in some ways more difficult than mine.  If you ask me for my opinion on the rightness and wrongness of homosexual sex or SSM, I will tell you that I believe it to be wrong.  If you do not ask me I am likely to love you and lift you however I am guided to do so which may never include telling you that homosexual relations are wrong.  But, I stand with the prophet and with even less conflicting thoughts than I once did.

Charity, TOm

[Thinking]

Matthew 22:20-21

"And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s."

 

I don't think the state should tell the church what to believe, and I don't think the church should tell the state what to believe. As for SSM, if two consenting adults want to commit to each other and call it marriage, let them. Likewise, I don't think the state should force a religion to accept SSM. If that means that a religion loses its authority to perform civil marriages, that's not the end of the world.

[carbon dioxide]

Matthew 22:20-21

"And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s."

 

I don't think the state should tell the church what to believe, and I don't think the church should tell the state what to believe. As for SSM, if two consenting adults want to commit to each other and call it marriage, let them. Likewise, I don't think the state should force a religion to accept SSM. If that means that a religion loses its authority to perform civil marriages, that's not the end of the world.

Outside of tax issues and things like that, civil marriage really means nothing to me.  I think it would be good for the church to perform temple sealings without getting a civil marriage.  We should not have to ask the government permission before we get married. 

[Walden]

I hope the title gets a few folks to read here, but I have moved from following the prophet to being more comfortable following the prophet and I want to open my reasons up for consideration / criticism.

 

My old position was that I could see the strengths of both sides of this question, but neither side was obviously correct.  With this understanding, following the prophet was easily the most rational decision.  No aspect of following the prophet has resulted in me becoming a worse person to my knowledge so ....

My new position is brought on by recognition of the world in which I live and a knowledge that it is wrong, coupled with how this world has impacted me.

 

In short, sex exists for the purpose of binding together husband and wife into a stable family lead by a mother and a father which then brings forth and nurtures children.  This explains the unitive effect of sex AND the procreative effect of sex.  This explains why sex outside of marriage is wrong.  This explains why homosexual sex is wrong.  This explains why pornography is wrong.  This explains why movies and commercials that focus on sex are wrong.  This explains a lot.

 

Now for more detail:

 

SSM: Same-Sex Mariage.

SSA: Same-Sex Attraction.

I have thought about SSM and SSA a great deal. 

Some pro-SSM thoughts

• I think "loving one another" is a higher calling then "multiply and replenish the earth" and I think same sex folks can and do love one another.  I also know that some folks biologically cannot have children. 
• I think that there are biological and genetic roots (though I am unconvinced they are completely causal) for same sex attraction. 
• I think that those who have same sex attractions did not choose to have same sex attraction any more than I choose to have opposite sex attractions.  I would find it somewhat difficult to live in a world that asked me to marry a man (and have sex with him) so I can appreciate that those with SSA might find it somewhat to horribly difficult to be asked to marry the opposite sex.

Some anti-SSM thoughts

• Secular society is served by the continuance of the species through the production of children.  SS marriage does not inherently produce children.
• Men and woman are not the same.  A family with a man and a woman at its head will provide things a family with two same sex partners at its head is unlikely to.
• There are obvious physiological reasons that men and woman partner absent in same sex partnering.

 

When it was all said and done, as I, TOm, approached this question, I could not determine an obvious answer.  The prophet is on the tower and perhaps he would see farther than I could.

 

 

 

 

Some more info:

• Younger folks are much less opposed to SSM than older folks.  My son is set to leave on his mission in about 6 months.  He doesn't have a problem with SSM the way my wife's parents do.
• The society in which I circulate has no problem with homosexual relations/marriage.  I have long said that the surest cure to racism is travel (this means getting to know those who you might be tempted to be prejudice against).  Those who know gay folks are less likely to be opposed to SSM.
• Time is on the side of those who support SSM.  Both because the young are less opposed to SSM AND because society in general becomes less opposed to SSM.  The "normalizing" of homosexual relations is happening.

 

 

 

But, I said I changed, so what changed for me?

I was listening to a discussion SSM and the speaker commented on why SSM is being supported more and opposed less.  The point was made that our culture does not view sex in a way that allows consistency for those who oppose SSM.  Those who participate in homosexual relations receive from it what society tells us we get from sex.  They enjoy it.  At a higher level they can (and do in some cases) also enjoy the unitive effect of sex in their homosexual sex.  Sex removed from its purpose, " binding together husband and wife into a stable family lead by a mother and a father which then brings forth and nurtures children," results in few consistent ways to distinguish homosexual sex for those with SSA from heterosexual sex for those without SSA. 

As I thought about this it seemed to become clear that my neutrality with respect to SSM was likely due to the sex-fueled world in which I live.  Sex is used to sell me products.  Sex is used to entertain me.  Sex is part of the environment in my engineering firm in ways that it should not be.  The place where sex belongs is less evident in my culture because righteous married couples hold their sex sacred and don't talk about it much. 

I have heard stories from the past (generally) where "sheltered" youth experienced some anxiety as they moved from "sex is evil" to "sex with my spouse is beautiful."  Such has never been part of my world and I don't want this for my children, but I am sure that the cultural messages about sex are a large part of my life and the life of my children.  I lean toward the idea that the anxiety might be the lesser (much lesser) of two wrongs.

 

The speaker went on to say that to speak against SSM consistently was to condemn oneself and ones actions.  Few are willing to do this AND intelligent thoughtful folks recognize that this is involved in speaking against SSM.  So, let me say this, I am now more convinced that SSM is wrong.  I fully acknowledge that the sex that sold me products last week is wrong, I am a sinner.  I fully acknowledge the sex that I viewed on TV last week for entertainment is wrong, I am a sinner.  I fully acknowledge many more things that I think I shall not mention on a discussion board, I am a sinner.  But, I am of the opinion that sex within a committed marriage is right and beautiful and sex within a homosexual relation is not appropriate.

 

Now, let me soften this message just a little.  I have a beam in my eye and thus I do not crusade against those who embrace homosexual sex as individuals.  I think my past and perhaps current sexual sins are more separative (their effect upon me is that I withdraw from God) than are the present actions of many homosexuals.  I think such is true in general as Christian society (and God) tells the person without SSA that they may live their sexuality in a committed marriage, but Christian society (often) (and God) tells the person with SSA that they cannot live their sexuality.  So those with SSA who live their sexuality are sinning, but while sin is sin, their struggles are in some ways more difficult than mine.  If you ask me for my opinion on the rightness and wrongness of homosexual sex or SSM, I will tell you that I believe it to be wrong.  If you do not ask me I am likely to love you and lift you however I am guided to do so which may never include telling you that homosexual relations are wrong.  But, I stand with the prophet and with even less conflicting thoughts than I once did.

Charity, TOm

 

You are aware that there are additional considerations in marriage outside of sex, right? Your entire argument seems focused almost exclusively on the sex in and outside of marriage. Someone once said that sex is like sneezing...it feels good when it happens, but there is a lot of life that happens in between sneezes.

 

And IMO, the argument that "Secular society is served by the continuance of the species through the production of children.  SS marriage does not inherently produce children," might be the most laughable argument posed by the anti-homosexual crowd. This planet is quickly being pushed to the brink of resource availability due to rampant overpopulation.

[pogi]

Someone once said that sex is like sneezing...it feels good when it happens, but there is a lot of life that happens in between sneezes.

 

That is really funny, and so true.

[KevinG]

Working with, and being friends with homosexuals, I often explain that my covenants do not apply to them.  I also believe that loving God and loving one another supersedes other laws, but it also does not excuse them.

 

One dear friend is in a loving and for all purposes healthy same sex relationship.  More healthy from a respect and nurturing standpoint than a lot of heterosexual marriages I know.

 

This has forced me to consider the why, behind the what, of the doctrines we have about marriage and gender.

 

The conclusion I have come to is this.  Exaltation includes eternal increase, a function of two sex marriages and literal posterity.  To have a genetic posterity (flesh of our flesh) we must marry in the way God has decreed.  (Exceptions would be those who are barren - but that is corrected through the resurrection).  I can believe that my friends can even reach celestial glory, but they will always be denied one component of exaltation, which is an eternal posterity, without having an opposite gender spouse.

 

Short of that no argument against stable, monogamous, homosexual relationships really holds water for me. And I'm certainly not going to judge others harshly, using covenants they haven't made, and having drives I don't have, simply because my favorite sins and stumbling blocks are different from theirs.

Edited November 14, 2014 by KevinG

[TOmNossor]

Matthew 22:20-21

"And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s."

 

I don't think the state should tell the church what to believe, and I don't think the church should tell the state what to believe. As for SSM, if two consenting adults want to commit to each other and call it marriage, let them. Likewise, I don't think the state should force a religion to accept SSM. If that means that a religion loses its authority to perform civil marriages, that's not the end of the world.

Let me first acknowledge I wrote my post primarily for those who consider themselves Christians and yet struggle with advocating that those with SSA should not be able to marry and sin in the exercise of their preferred sexuality even in the presence of commitment or legal marriage.

 

 

I hope Christians can think on what I said and will not focus solely on what I now say:

The government is for the people by the people and there are good secular reasons why the state should not encourage SSM and should encourage marriage between a man and a woman.  The Christian can and should vote with

 

• The producing and rearing children is in the best interest of the state.  70 year old men are not police officers, firefighter, or soldiers.
• The raising of said children in a stable home.  Encouraging marriage and making divorce something that is not desirable is important.  I do not think woman or men should stay in a marriage where they are abused, but I am unconvinced that the dissolution of marriage (especial when kids are already present) should be so easy.
• It is true that my marriage is not much affected by SSM, but what about wild-child-32 in my ward.  When I grew up 25 years ago, I fully expect I would be married (though I was quite aware that being single and free was fun and easy).  Today folks delay or forgo marriage.  The presence of divorce, SSM, shacking-up, and ... have an impact on wild-child-32 that MAY result in him forgoing traditional marriage.  I hope my son is not the "marginal-case" but, I think it quite likely that wild-child-32 can become a productive husband and father.  And I submit it is MUCH better for wild-child-32 to be a productive husband and father than an unattached 35 year old who may or may not be fathering children with other unattached 35 year old.

 

The only reason that the cold-hearted state should support SSM is that it is likely better for society if the person with SSA is in a SSM than if they are flitting around unattached at 35.  Folks with good support structures are better in society than folks without.  But, at the very least such a goal should be furthered in a way that mitigates any disincentives to marry.

 

So, without God, I would say that societal evolution has produced the male/female marriage and this relationship is critical to the forwarding of societies.  To heck (a place that doesn't exist if there is no God) with those folks crying "unfair."  Let them form egairram bonds and I will write laws that give them similar hospital visitation for their significant other (though I am unlikely to alter their tax structure as their Same Sex relationship does not produce the societal benefits that male/female couplings do).

 

Again, I really wrote this from a Christian perspective not from a secular perspective, but I do not think SSM wins the debate from a secular perspective if you really look at what sex evolutionarily has developed for thousands of years and reject what has happened over the last 50 or so.  Uncommitted coupling is bad for society.  Committed men and woman coupling for life is good for society.

 

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Outside of tax issues and things like that, civil marriage really means nothing to me.  I think it would be good for the church to perform temple sealings without getting a civil marriage.  We should not have to ask the government permission before we get married. 

I think there is much wisdom in this.

I am quite convinced that all states or US law will recognize SSM in the same way it currently recognizes opposite sex marriage.

This does not mean that I am convinced that such is a good thing, just a likely thing.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

You are aware that there are additional considerations in marriage outside of sex, right? Your entire argument seems focused almost exclusively on the sex in and outside of marriage. Someone once said that sex is like sneezing...it feels good when it happens, but there is a lot of life that happens in between sneezes.

 

And IMO, the argument that "Secular society is served by the continuance of the species through the production of children.  SS marriage does not inherently produce children," might be the most laughable argument posed by the anti-homosexual crowd. This planet is quickly being pushed to the brink of resource availability due to rampant overpopulation.

Hey! I freely admitted that I am sex-crazed!

Well, not really (meaning that was not my intended admission).

Of course I am aware there is more to marriage than sex.  I think my comments evidence this.

When I suggest that a man and a woman bring different gifting to a family, it was intended to acknowledge that for this non-sexual reason it is preferable that children be raised with a mother and father.

When I spoke in my response to "Thinking" of the importance of 35 year olds with stable relationships (and in this case I included SS and opposite sex in this being important), I was acknowledging that there is more to this than sex.

That being said, one of the biggest differences in the SSM and the OSM (Opposite Sex Marriage) is sexual.  So, I think it natural to include some thoughts on this.

 

Concerning "rampant overpopulation" I am not as convinced that it is a problem as you seem to be.  Where I to become convinced this was a problem, I still think that replacement level procreation within a stable family lead by a mother and father is in societies best interests in ways that loving coupling of homosexuals is not.

Charity, TOm

Edited November 14, 2014 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

Working with, and being friends with homosexuals, I often explain that my covenants do not apply to them.  I also believe that loving God and loving one another supersedes other laws, but it also does not excuse them.

 

One dear friend is in a loving and for all purposes healthy same sex relationship.  More healthy from a respect and nurturing standpoint than a lot of heterosexual marriages I know.

 

This has forced me to consider the why, behind the what, of the doctrines we have about marriage and gender.

 

The conclusion I have come to is this.  Exaltation includes eternal increase, a function of two sex marriages and literal posterity.  To have a genetic posterity (flesh of our flesh) we must marry in the way God has decreed.  (Exceptions would be those who are barren - but that is corrected through the resurrection).  I can believe that my friends can even reach celestial glory, but they will always be denied one component of exaltation, which is an eternal posterity, without having an opposite gender spouse.

 

Short of that no argument against stable, monogamous, homosexual relationships really holds water for me. And I'm certainly not going to judge others harshly, using covenants they haven't made, and having drives I don't have, simply because my favorite sins and stumbling blocks are different from theirs.

I think my post is saying that I am devolving in ways you are not.  I think I could have written much the same post you just did 6 months ago though I would have probably included a hat-tip to "follow the prophet."  I also might have said that I do not believe there is NECESSARILY any limit to the post mortal progression of homosexuals, but that I do not know what that looks like.  I still believe all of this too.  I am just more comfortable explaining why I think SSM is something that I would vote against for more reasons than just "following the prophet."

 

I have homosexual friends.  I do not think any of them have asked me for my opinion and I have not given it to them.  As I said at the end of my post, " I have a beam in my eye and thus I do not crusade against those who embrace homosexual sex as individuals.  I think my past and perhaps current sexual sins are more separative (their effect upon me is that I withdraw from God) than are the present actions of many homosexuals.  I think such is true in general as Christian society (and God) tells the person without SSA that they may live their sexuality in a committed marriage, but Christian society (often) (and God) tells the person with SSA that they cannot live their sexuality.  So those with SSA who live their sexuality are sinning, but while sin is sin, their struggles are in some ways more difficult than mine.  If you ask me for my opinion on the rightness and wrongness of homosexual sex or SSM, I will tell you that I believe it to be wrong.  If you do not ask me I am likely to love you and lift you however I am guided to do so which may never include telling you that homosexual relations are wrong.  But, I stand with the prophet and with even less conflicting thoughts than I once did."

 

I initiated this post however because the idea that, sex exists for the purpose of "binding together husband and wife into a stable family lead by a mother and a father which then brings forth and nurtures children," was transformative for me.  The idea that I swim in a sexualized culture that has very much taught me that sex has little to do with this and has thus colored my opinion of SSM.  When I stepped back and looked at sex from this perspective it made a number of sexual

"sins" more clear in my mind.  Not just the ones I don't personally struggle with (SSA/SSM), but the ones with which I do struggle.

Charity, TOm     

[jwhitlock]

One item for consideration, TOm. While sex between two men is basically universally repugnant to straight males, there are a surprising number of men with SSA who participate in mixed gender marriages and are quite successful in them.

 

I agree with your comment that well functioning mixed gender marriages provide a complementary strength that cannot be duplicated in SSM. 

[mfbukowski]

I hope the title gets a few folks to read here, but I have moved from following the prophet to being more comfortable following the prophet and I want to open my reasons up for consideration / criticism.

 

My old position was that I could see the strengths of both sides of this question, but neither side was obviously correct.  With this understanding, following the prophet was easily the most rational decision.  No aspect of following the prophet has resulted in me becoming a worse person to my knowledge so ....

My new position is brought on by recognition of the world in which I live and a knowledge that it is wrong, coupled with how this world has impacted me.

In short, sex exists for the purpose of binding together husband and wife into a stable family lead by a mother and a father which then brings forth and nurtures children.  This explains the unitive effect of sex AND the procreative effect of sex.  This explains why sex outside of marriage is wrong.  This explains why homosexual sex is wrong.  This explains why pornography is wrong.  This explains why movies and commercials that focus on sex are wrong.  This explains a lot.

 

Now for more detail:

 

SSM: Same-Sex Mariage.

SSA: Same-Sex Attraction.

I have thought about SSM and SSA a great deal. 

Some pro-SSM thoughts

• I think "loving one another" is a higher calling then "multiply and replenish the earth" and I think same sex folks can and do love one another.  I also know that some folks biologically cannot have children. 
• I think that there are biological and genetic roots (though I am unconvinced they are completely causal) for same sex attraction. 
• I think that those who have same sex attractions did not choose to have same sex attraction any more than I choose to have opposite sex attractions.  I would find it somewhat difficult to live in a world that asked me to marry a man (and have sex with him) so I can appreciate that those with SSA might find it somewhat to horribly difficult to be asked to marry the opposite sex.

Some anti-SSM thoughts

• Secular society is served by the continuance of the species through the production of children.  SS marriage does not inherently produce children.
• Men and woman are not the same.  A family with a man and a woman at its head will provide things a family with two same sex partners at its head is unlikely to.
• There are obvious physiological reasons that men and woman partner absent in same sex partnering.

When it was all said and done, as I, TOm, approached this question, I could not determine an obvious answer.  The prophet is on the tower and perhaps he would see farther than I could.

 

 

 

 

Some more info:

• Younger folks are much less opposed to SSM than older folks.  My son is set to leave on his mission in about 6 months.  He doesn't have a problem with SSM the way my wife's parents do.
• The society in which I circulate has no problem with homosexual relations/marriage.  I have long said that the surest cure to racism is travel (this means getting to know those who you might be tempted to be prejudice against).  Those who know gay folks are less likely to be opposed to SSM.
• Time is on the side of those who support SSM.  Both because the young are less opposed to SSM AND because society in general becomes less opposed to SSM.  The "normalizing" of homosexual relations is happening.

But, I said I changed, so what changed for me?

I was listening to a discussion SSM and the speaker commented on why SSM is being supported more and opposed less.  The point was made that our culture does not view sex in a way that allows consistency for those who oppose SSM.  Those who participate in homosexual relations receive from it what society tells us we get from sex.  They enjoy it.  At a higher level they can (and do in some cases) also enjoy the unitive effect of sex in their homosexual sex.  Sex removed from its purpose, " binding together husband and wife into a stable family lead by a mother and a father which then brings forth and nurtures children," results in few consistent ways to distinguish homosexual sex for those with SSA from heterosexual sex for those without SSA. 

As I thought about this it seemed to become clear that my neutrality with respect to SSM was likely due to the sex-fueled world in which I live.  Sex is used to sell me products.  Sex is used to entertain me.  Sex is part of the environment in my engineering firm in ways that it should not be.  The place where sex belongs is less evident in my culture because righteous married couples hold their sex sacred and don't talk about it much. 

I have heard stories from the past (generally) where "sheltered" youth experienced some anxiety as they moved from "sex is evil" to "sex with my spouse is beautiful."  Such has never been part of my world and I don't want this for my children, but I am sure that the cultural messages about sex are a large part of my life and the life of my children.  I lean toward the idea that the anxiety might be the lesser (much lesser) of two wrongs.

 

The speaker went on to say that to speak against SSM consistently was to condemn oneself and ones actions.  Few are willing to do this AND intelligent thoughtful folks recognize that this is involved in speaking against SSM.  So, let me say this, I am now more convinced that SSM is wrong.  I fully acknowledge that the sex that sold me products last week is wrong, I am a sinner.  I fully acknowledge the sex that I viewed on TV last week for entertainment is wrong, I am a sinner.  I fully acknowledge many more things that I think I shall not mention on a discussion board, I am a sinner.  But, I am of the opinion that sex within a committed marriage is right and beautiful and sex within a homosexual relation is not appropriate.

 

Now, let me soften this message just a little.  I have a beam in my eye and thus I do not crusade against those who embrace homosexual sex as individuals.  I think my past and perhaps current sexual sins are more separative (their effect upon me is that I withdraw from God) than are the present actions of many homosexuals.  I think such is true in general as Christian society (and God) tells the person without SSA that they may live their sexuality in a committed marriage, but Christian society (often) (and God) tells the person with SSA that they cannot live their sexuality.  So those with SSA who live their sexuality are sinning, but while sin is sin, their struggles are in some ways more difficult than mine.  If you ask me for my opinion on the rightness and wrongness of homosexual sex or SSM, I will tell you that I believe it to be wrong.  If you do not ask me I am likely to love you and lift you however I am guided to do so which may never include telling you that homosexual relations are wrong.  But, I stand with the prophet and with even less conflicting thoughts than I once did.

Charity, TOm

Brilliant as usual, good to see you again. Edited November 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

While sex between two men is basically universally repugnant to straight males ...

 

Sorry, but as a historian, I have to point out here that there is absolutely nothing universal about this repugnance you mention. You're projecting a relatively recent Western/Christian paradigm onto the rest of the world, most of which historically hasn't been fussed at all about sex between two men. In many places where I've lived, same-sex behaviour is still accepted as a completely normal stage many/most men go through en route to marriage and the acceptance of adult commitments and responsibilities. In many parts of Melanesia before the adoption of Christianity, young boys were socialised to believe that sex with women was inferior to sex with men and desirable only to impregnate their future wives.

 

In addition, studies in the US amongst men who identify as 100% 'straight' have clearly demonstrated that nearly all men, regardless of what they claim to find repugnant, experience sexual arousal when exposed to 'homosexual' erotica. The notion of 'heterosexual' people repulsed by homosex is a historically demonstrable social construct wholely dependent on the late 19th-century myth of sexual identity and all the concomitant entrapments that have come along with it.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

Thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking post.

I don't reach the same conclusion but I appreciated your well-constructed post.

I recently watched "All you need is love?" on YouTube. It's a 10-minute independent film that turns the scenario on its head. It reminded me how ridiculous it was that the last 100-200 years of western society have felt it appropriate to tell adults who they should and shouldn't be attracted to.

[california boy]

I too would like to thank you for your thought provoking post.  Hopefully this thread will stay on track and really explore the implications of gay marriage without the bashing that often creeps into threads on SSM.

 

I would like to respond from a gay persons perspective.  

 

First I would like to address procreation.  Whether two men live together or whether two men are allowed to marry, the procreation aspects are identical.  In both situations, they can not have children.  And telling a gay person they must be celibate their whole lives also produce no children.  So procreation is really an irrelevant part of the discussion.

 

Second, sex.  Almost your whole thought process in coming to your conclusion is centered around sex.  And while sex is a part of most humans needs and drives, it is really a very small part of who we are and does not overshadow all the other needs that humans desire.  I think the sneeze comment was right on.  Furthermore, whether a gay couple is just living together or married, the sexual component remains unchanged.  In both relationships the amount of sex will probably be the same.  So the state telling a couple they are not allowed to marry changes nothing in regard to sex between two gay men.  It is also irrelevant part of the discussion.

 

Third. This brings us to the options a gay man has in life.  He can remain celibate.  This seems to be the prophets recommendation.  But let's examine this for a bit.  In order to promote celibacy, you are also promoting a life of loneliness and one without any companionship.  This seems to be a very important part of the human experience.  Telling a person that living alone is a good option is counter to almost every drive that we are born with whether you are straight or gay.  From a very early age, humans desire to find a mate they can share this human experience with.  One of the very first utterances of God was in fact, "It is not good for man to be alone,"  To demand celibacy, you have to embrace that in fact, it is good for man to be alone.  

 

Now think about the richness of your life for a moment, and take away the relationship you have with your spouse.  Just how important is that relationship?  More important than your work?  More important than your church callings?  More important than even your children??  Just what would you be willing to give up to live a celibate and separate life.  What would it be like coming home to an empty home?  What would it be like to not have someone to share your successes, failures, happiness, joy, even the gospel with?  Just how comfortable is the prophets call for all gay people to be celibate simply because they are attracted to the same sex.  How does celibacy for eternity fit into the gospel plan?  What Christ-like experiences come out of being with someone on this earth?  

 

From a societal point of view, do you think it would be better for the entire gay population to be running around single?  From a government point of view, should gays be expected to be celibate? Does the government have a right to also demand that single heterosexuals remain celibate?   Is society better off when gay couples can only shack up together rather than being allowed to be in a married relationship?  

 

This is the real question to be asked.  Would a gay church member be in a better place if they were in a committed married same sex relationship rather than being celibate and all of the emptiness that brings them?  

[california boy]

Thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking post.

I don't reach the same conclusion but I appreciated your well-constructed post.

I recently watched "All you need is love?" on YouTube. It's a 10-minute independent film that turns the scenario on its head. It reminded me how ridiculous it was that the last 100-200 years of western society have felt it appropriate to tell adults who they should and shouldn't be attracted to.

 

That was really hard for me to watch.  It brought up a lot of things that I have long buried.  Here is the link if anyone else is interested.

 

All You Need Is Love

[CV75]

This is the real question to be asked.  Would a gay church member be in a better place if they were in a committed married same sex relationship rather than being celibate and all of the emptiness that brings them?  

God’s highest laws are exercised with intent, meaning and for the Lord’s blessing of eternal life. This is why the laws of human procreation are expressed in their highest form through His covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.

 

While sex can be viewed as a human need and drive, it is fundamentally for procreation and the eternal ramifications that brings as defined in the legitimate covenant of marriage.

 

It is not good for man to be alone, hence the woman, not another man. Two or more men is still “man alone.”

 

People may experience their relationships differently, but the plain and precious eternal laws and covenants are straight and narrow, and are laid out the same for everyone.

 

Celibacy is not an expression of exaltation in the eternal world, but it can be an aspect of mortality that can qualify someone for eternal life, depending on their circumstances and how they deal with it.

 

These remarks are not reflective of worldly societies or government systems, but of Zion. Hence the “real question” as Alma 32 would define it would be something like, “What would the Lord have me do?”

 

Would a gay church member be in a better place if they were in a committed married same sex relationship rather than being celibate and all of the emptiness that brings them? 

 

Each gay church member must personally decide whether to fear the Lord, obey the voice of his servant, trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God or to “walk in the light of [his] fire, and in the sparks that [he has] kindled” (Isaiah 50;10-11), and so decide which path would land him in a “better place” (whatever he decides that is) just like every other member: all the saints have to weigh the challenges faced in this short life with our eternal prospects.

 

A saint typically moves beyond considering his own five senses and what his society and government would allow him to do.

[canard78]

God’s highest laws are exercised with intent, meaning and for the Lord’s blessing of eternal life. This is why the laws of human procreation are expressed in their highest form through His covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.

 

While sex can be viewed as a human need and drive, it is fundamentally for procreation and the eternal ramifications that brings as defined in the legitimate covenant of marriage.

 

It is not good for man to be alone, hence the woman, not another man. Two or more men is still “man alone.”

 

People may experience their relationships differently, but the plain and precious eternal laws and covenants are straight and narrow, and are laid out the same for everyone.

 

Celibacy is not an expression of exaltation in the eternal world, but it can be an aspect of mortality that can qualify someone for eternal life, depending on their circumstances and how they deal with it.

 

These remarks are not reflective of worldly societies or government systems, but of Zion. Hence the “real question” as Alma 32 would define it would be something like, “What would the Lord have me do?”

 

Would a gay church member be in a better place if they were in a committed married same sex relationship rather than being celibate and all of the emptiness that brings them? 

 

Each gay church member must personally decide whether to fear the Lord, obey the voice of his servant, trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God or to “walk in the light of [his] fire, and in the sparks that [he has] kindled” (Isaiah 50;10-11), and so decide which path would land him in a “better place” (whatever he decides that is) just like every other member: all the saints have to weigh the challenges faced in this short life with our eternal prospects.

 

A saint typically moves beyond considering his own five senses and what his society and government would allow him to do.

 

I read statements like this and am so glad I no longer have to go through the contortions of believing in an image of god that you, and many others in Mormonism, have created.

[poptart]

Working with, and being friends with homosexuals, I often explain that my covenants do not apply to them.  I also believe that loving God and loving one another supersedes other laws, but it also does not excuse them.

 

One dear friend is in a loving and for all purposes healthy same sex relationship.  More healthy from a respect and nurturing standpoint than a lot of heterosexual marriages I know.

 

This has forced me to consider the why, behind the what, of the doctrines we have about marriage and gender.

 

The conclusion I have come to is this.  Exaltation includes eternal increase, a function of two sex marriages and literal posterity.  To have a genetic posterity (flesh of our flesh) we must marry in the way God has decreed.  (Exceptions would be those who are barren - but that is corrected through the resurrection).  I can believe that my friends can even reach celestial glory, but they will always be denied one component of exaltation, which is an eternal posterity, without having an opposite gender spouse.

 

Short of that no argument against stable, monogamous, homosexual relationships really holds water for me. And I'm certainly not going to judge others harshly, using covenants they haven't made, and having drives I don't have, simply because my favorite sins and stumbling blocks are different from theirs.

On the bright side of having a homosexual husband, you have someone to fight over the cute fuchsia apron and paint your nails with lol. 

Edited November 15, 2014 by poptart

[strappinglad]

I personally know quite a few people who are celibate , some by choice, some by circumstance. Most are single but some are married. There is only one reason that a homosexual couple would need to get married and that is to establish a legal contract recognized by law and government. It also follows that society would then have to acknowledge such a contract and all that it implies. The only reason 2 people remain together is their personal commitment , not some paper. To say that two people cannot experience love, even Christ-like love, unless there is a sexual component is false.

For the record, I live where SSM is legal. Personally I have not seen any massive changes that have affected me .I am much more affected by the sexualization of everything over the last few decades. I am more concerned with the abdication by men of their responsibilities when it comes to children.

If california boy or daniel2 want to commit to another person for life and when they arrive at the pearly gate discover, much to their chagrin, that they were sinning , well they will have to accept the consequences , just like I will when I am told that my mistakes, which I thought were not all that serious, were sins.

All I know is that we all need to cultivate Charity, because it covereth a multitude of sins and the Lord knows we all need a big cover.

[california boy]

There is only one reason that a homosexual couple would need to get married and that is to establish a legal contract recognized by law and government. It also follows that society would then have to acknowledge such a contract and all that it implies. The only reason 2 people remain together is their personal commitment , not some paper. To say that two people cannot experience love, even Christ-like love, unless there is a sexual component is false.

Would you say this is true of heterosexual couples as well?

[california boy]

On the bright side of having a homosexual husband, you have someone to fight over the cute fuchsia apron and paint your nails with lol. 

These sterotypes are incredibly insulting.  

On the bright side of being Mormon , if you get tired of your first wife, you can just marry another.  Not so funny huh. 

[poptart]

These sterotypes are incredibly insulting.  

On the bright side of being Mormon , if you get tired of your first wife, you can just marry another.  Not so funny huh. 

Pft I was joking.  I'm technically bi but yeah, pretty much date just men and yeah, I like fuchsia aprons and painting my nails with a cute guy.  In my case, the stereotypes are true.

Also, multiple wives and no cute guys, eewwwwww

[canard78]

These sterotypes are incredibly insulting.  

On the bright side of being Mormon , if you get tired of your first wife, you can just marry another.  Not so funny huh. 

 

I think poptart is a guy.

[CV75]

I read statements like this and am so glad I no longer have to go through the contortions of believing in an image of god that you, and many others in Mormonism, have created.

I read statements like this and wonder why you bothered…

 

Everyone, including you, believes in an image of God that is created and held in the mind—this is where God manifests Himself, and is the means by which He is seen. You haven’t any other image but your own, so don’t pretend to know mine, or that of many others’, or the image created by your greater stars. You simply haven’t the wattage.

 

Your word choice to condemn others is interesting: “contort and “pervert” are synonyms. Perform a scripture search of the word “pervert” in context of the laws and judgments of God, and then think through who is perverting what.

 

Note that the one question in my post wasn't mine, but the poster's that I was replying to! LOL