Jump to content

Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?


Recommended Posts

I'm disappointed. I don't understand the fear and disdain for gay people who would like to be legally married and enjoy the same rights as other couples.

I have yet to see a good reason why a committed couple should not be allowed to marry and enjoy equal rights.

 

I don't fear gay people.  It is really very simple.

 

1. Homosexuality is a sinful act.

2. Condoning SSM is legitimizing sin.

3. Legitimizing ANY sin is a dangerous path.

 

 

Government has been involved in marriage for a very long time so pretending like it is just now getting involved to ruin marriage by allowing gays to marry is indefensible. The institution of marriage has been mocked for a long time so even if you view gay marriage as a mockery, it certainly wouldn't be the first. Of course many would point to polygamy as a mockery of marriage.

 

And they would be wrong.  Either marriage comes from God or it doesn't.  The argument that "well, it's already been interfered with and ruined by people" doesn't persuade at all that we should support further degradation.

 

 

This kind of descrimination is a mockery of God's command to love one another.

 

Poppycock.  This has nothing to do with loving our fellow man.  It has to do with our tolerance for sin.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

This is an interesting paradigm. My very conservative parents are quick to declare me as unorthodox, bordering on apostate because I choose to accept the idea that prophets can make mistakes and therefore I am responsible for determining for myself what is right. Yet they do the same thing. I may discount past statements and accept new ones, like Christofferson's, while they accept past statements but reject new ones. We both accept certain statements and reject others yet I am the only one considered unorthodox.

 

For example, they are positive that past teachings on race and the priesthood are correct and the new statements disavowing those teachings is false while I take the opposite approach. Perhaps we should all just realize that we will disagree on certain issues and it doesn't mean one side is better or more righteous than the other.

 

But the whole point of sunday school is to congratulate ourselves for being better and more righteous than others.

 

Seriously, though, be kind to your parents. Being the last ones to come around doesn't make the wrestle any easier. Even George Wallace eventually admitted he was wrong. In my experience, people are much more likely to open their hearts to better things if they know they won't be condemned for flip-flopping.

Link to post

And they would be wrong.  Either marriage comes from God or it doesn't.  The argument that "well, it's already been interfered with and ruined by people" doesn't persuade at all that we should support further degradation.

 

 

Unfortunately, God has not made himself available to testify in our courts or legislatures. So even if we accept that marriage comes from God, we are reliant and faulty and disagreeable mortals ("We the People") to put that principle into effect. So while a majority of Americans may agree that marriage comes from God, substantively that doesn't mean a thing.

Link to post

God has not made himself available to testify in our courts or legislatures.

 

God has already provided his testimony in the form of scripture, his actions, and the words of his prophets.

 

As saints, that should be sufficient for us to support.

As the world ("we the people") God appearing in court wouldn't matter.

 

Again with the transfer of marriage from God to the world.  As saints we shouldn't support that transfer in our actions or beliefs, even if it already started hundreds of years back.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Dingdingding...we've found the problem.  Scripturally, God doesn't work that way.

 

D&C 43

2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

 

Only one source for "further light and knowledge" that can be applied to the whole Church.

It is contrary to the order of heaven for God to provide light for the Church from an outside source.

The problem, of course, is when it comes to interracial marriage, for instance, there was no revelation on the matter, it seems. men spoken presumptuously, yet authoritatively. I would not doubt at all if the same will be said of SSM someday.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I have never bought into the "rights" argument for the simple reason there are a number of different ways "rights" are given to people and individuals.  Marriage is hardly the sole source of any right.  If this entire movement was only about rights they would be demanding the specific rights desired; instead this is about something else entirely.  

I didn't say anything about rights. I just asked about "let them worship how, what, or where they may." As part of the canon, is it not by responsibility to live and let live?

Link to post

Hardly disparagement - questioning a political decision by our religious leaders is hardly an insult.  They are still God's prophets and apostles, who have admitted to making mistakes.  I just think this approach could be one of them.  Time will tell.

 

 

I think the leaders of the Church are trying to be as Christlike in the face of the sinner as they possibly can be, and for that I applaud them.  Loving our fellow man, even though a sinner, is exactly what we should be doing.

But the line between loving the sinner and tolerating the sin is a very very fine one.  Christ never did the latter and neither should we.

 I think they're trying to be Christlike, too. I think they make it clear that they understand the same sex desires/attraction are not a choice and not a sin, but that homosexual behavior is a sin. Ten years ago, they were both sins. You seem to indicate that the idea of SSA not being a choice is not new light and knowledge. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion when it is very clear the stance has changed.

Link to post

I don't fear gay people.  It is really very simple.

 

1. Homosexuality is a sinful act.

According to our apostles who speak about these things, homosexual acts are sinful, not homosexuality itself.

 

And if we can believe that Jospeh Smith may have been married to but not have had sex with 14-year-olds, can't we also believe two men can be married and not have sex?

Edited by Boanerges
Link to post

Hardly disparagement - questioning a political decision by our religious leaders is hardly an insult.  They are still God's prophets and apostles, who have admitted to making mistakes.  I just think this approach could be one of them.  Time will tell.

 

 

I think the leaders of the Church are trying to be as Christlike in the face of the sinner as they possibly can be, and for that I applaud them.  Loving our fellow man, even though a sinner, is exactly what we should be doing.

But the line between loving the sinner and tolerating the sin is a very very fine one.  Christ never did the latter and neither should we.

We don't know all that Christ had done. We're just guessing on this stuff.

Link to post

The problem, of course, is when it comes to interracial marriage, for instance, there was no revelation on the matter, it seems. men spoken presumptuously, yet authoritatively. I would not doubt at all if the same will be said of SSM someday.

 

If you were to check my posting history you would find that I agree with you on your second point.

I think the Church will eventually accept SSM.

 

According to our apostles who speak about these things, homosexual acts are sinful, not homosexuality itself.

 

Splitting hairs and semantics, but I agree with your point.  It is the act that is the sin.

Link to post

JLHPROF,

 

I'm disappointed. I don't understand the fear and disdain for gay people who would like to be legally married and enjoy the same rights as other couples. Government has been involved in marriage for a very long time so pretending like it is just now getting involved to ruin marriage by allowing gays to marry is indefensible. The institution of marriage has been mocked for a long time so even if you view gay marriage as a mockery, it certainly wouldn't be the first. Of course many would point to polygamy as a mockery of marriage.

 

I have yet to see a good reason why a committed couple should not be allowed to marry and enjoy equal rights. This kind of descrimination is a mockery of God's command to love one another.

Can you see a good reason why committed trios or quartets or entire symphonies in all their variety should not be allowed to marry and enjoy equal rights?

Link to post

And if we can believe that Jospeh Smith may have been married to but not have had sex with 14-year-olds, can't we also believe two men can be married and not have sex?

 

I suppose we can.

But Joseph's marriages were not sinful and violated no law of God (despite what modern sensibilities would have you believe).

 

The issue isn't can two men be "married" and celibate.  Of course they can.

 

Honestly, I think I'll bow out of the conversation because in the end I think it's completely moot anyway.

We could pass laws allowing SSM 100% legitimization and the Church could let them into the temples and start sealing tomorrow.

They still wouldn't really be married in the end.  Two men cannot really be married.  Two women cannot really be married.  Not by the true definition of marriage.  So in the end all we are arguing about is an imaginary status.  If they want it, give it to them.

 

But I will continue to love the sinner and not condone the sin.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Can you see a good reason why committed trios or quartets or entire symphonies in all their variety should not be allowed to marry and enjoy equal rights?

 

Yes.  Eternal laws of family.

Link to post

The problem, of course, is when it comes to interracial marriage, for instance, there was no revelation on the matter, it seems. men spoken presumptuously, yet authoritatively. I would not doubt at all if the same will be said of SSM someday.

Having lived during the time that interracial marriage was discouraged (not forbidden - my sister was in an interracial marriage in the Church), I recognize that there were compelling societal reasons apart from Church doctrine, not only in the United States but in most of the world.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

According to our apostles who speak about these things, homosexual acts are sinful, not homosexuality itself.

That's right. There is nothing at all wrong with being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex as long as people of the same sex don't have sexual relations/intercourse/"sex" with each other.

...can't we also believe two men can be married and not have sex?

Whether or not we can believe it, people of the same sex can be very good friends to each other, even life long friends, and roommates/housemates, and be joint owners in all of their properties and rights, and never have sexual relations/intercourse/"sex" with each other, and if they wanted to call all of that a marriage I would not have a problem with that.
Link to post

That's right. There is nothing at all wrong with being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex as long as people of the same sex don't have sexual relations/intercourse/"sex" with each other.

Whether or not we can believe it, people of the same sex can be very good friends to each other, even life long friends, and roommates/housemates, and be joint owners in all of their properties and rights, and never have sexual relations/intercourse/"sex" with each other, and if they wanted to call all of that a marriage I would not have a problem with that.

Wouldn't that also apply to mother/son, father/daughter, aunt/niece, whatever relationships?

Link to post

 

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Who they marry may be influenced by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition. Conversely, such practices may be outlawed and penalized in parts of the world out of concerns for women's rights and because of international law.[2] In developed parts of the world, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights within marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interracial, interfaith, and same-gender couples. Oftentimes, these trends have been motivated by a desire to establish equality and uphold human rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

 

The refusal to deny gays the right to marry seems backwards to me. Do we not want gay people to be committed to each other in a monogomous relationship? Do we not want them to have equal rights? Do we feel justified in refusing them to join in a cultural, legal contract that establishes rights and obligations between them?

 

Does anyone anywhere believe that marriage is only a religious ritual? If this were the case then refusing a religious ritual based on religious belief may make some sense, but the church is refusing a legal, cultural ritual based on religious belief. See the difference?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Does anyone anywhere believe that marriage is only a religious ritual?

 

I do, I do, I do.

 

Or at least, I believe that it should be and that the only marriage that matters is the God ordained ceremony.

Link to post

Splitting hairs and semantics, but I agree with your point.  It is the act that is the sin.

 

Not splitting hairs at all. From the Mormons and Gays website and directly quoted word for word by Elder Ballard on at least two occasions:

 

 

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Link to post

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

 

With what goal?  To bring them to Christ and start them on the road back to his presence.

 

A very worthy goal.  But one where the end result will require they not act on their attraction ever and work to remove it.

The Church is not supporting SSM so why should its members?  The Church's end goal based in current doctrines would unavoidably have to be to see every person with SSA eventually (whether in this world or the world to come) stop having SSA and become married heterosexually so that they can achieve Celestial Exaltation.

It's great that the Church is working towards that noble goal, but I think based on responses I've seen that most people with SSA outside the Church wouldn't want that kind of reaching out.

The Church's end goal and the SS Community goal are not the same, no matter how this supportive stance may seem.

Link to post

I do, I do, I do.

 

Or at least, I believe that it should be and that the only marriage that matters is the God ordained ceremony.

No you don't.

 

If this were the case you'd be opposed to any wedding ceremony done outside of a church or by any authority other than a religious one. If that's how you really feel that would be an extreme view.

 

So which religious ceremony should be required? Jewish, islamic, Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan? Or should only temple marriages count as a real marriage?

Link to post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

 

The refusal to deny gays the right to marry seems backwards to me. Do we not want gay people to be committed to each other in a monogomous relationship? Do we not want them to have equal rights? Do we feel justified in refusing them to join in a cultural, legal contract that establishes rights and obligations between them?

 

Does anyone anywhere believe that marriage is only a religious ritual? If this were the case then refusing a religious ritual based on religious belief may make some sense, but the church is refusing a legal, cultural ritual based on religious belief. See the difference?

What is so important about monogamy (from a non-religious point-of-view, of course)? What secular criteria establish the number 2 or limit the choices of man/woman, man/man/, woman/woman as the optimum  for a relationship? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

With what goal?  To bring them to Christ and start them on the road back to his presence.

 

A very worthy goal.  But one where the end result will require they not act on their attraction ever and work to remove it.

 

They can NEVER act on their attraction. EVER. Not in this life or the next. Seems reasonable. But how do they work to remove SSA if it isn't a choice?

 

 

The Church is not supporting SSM so why should its members? 

 

The church didn't support interracial marriage either. Members are able to think for themselves and are not spoonfed every belief or position they should take...thank goodness.

 

The Church's end goal based in current doctrines would unavoidably have to be to see every person with SSA eventually (whether in this world or the world to come) stop having SSA and become married heterosexually so that they can achieve Celestial Exaltation.

 

Current doctrines are not necessarily the same thing as immutable truth with a capital T. And what makes you think that SSA will cease in the next world? Is there a current doctrine about that? Please cite it if there is. Or will those with SSA in this world also have it in the next? I don't know the answer to that but IF it continues as a part of their eternal personality/identity/whatever, then it seems very unloving to deny them happiness for eternity based on something that isn't a choice. It would be like God saying "all white people will be damned unless they change their race."

 

It's great that the Church is working towards that noble goal, but I think based on responses I've seen that most people with SSA outside the Church wouldn't want that kind of reaching out.

 

Why would anyone in or out of the church want that kind of reaching out? "Come join with us as long as you accept that you will never be truly happy or fulfilled in this life or the next. You will never achieve exaltation because of who you are."

 

The Church's end goal and the SS Community goal are not the same, no matter how this supportive stance may seem.

 

Sadly you're right. The SS community seeks for the happiness and fulfillment of the people whereas the church seems more interested in telling them they're not good enough now, or ever.

Bolding is mine-

Link to post

The Church is not supporting SSM so why should its members? 

 

Simple:

 

 

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Edited by Boanerges
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...