Jump to content

Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?


Recommended Posts

I still would like to know why the new definition of marriage as between 2 consenting adults has to be limited to 2 and to adults. 

 

If you "still" wonder about that, I would say it indicates you do not understand even the basics of the situation. 

 

But don't worry, the Browns have done their share to bring plural marriage into the realm of legality.

Edited by tonie
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Amazing how many people think this justifies their support for gay marriage.  Consider what Christofferson also said:

 

 

That is essentially paraphrasing the TR standard found in the TR question:

 

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

So the answer of course is no, one cannot support same sex marriage and still be considered worthy for a TR because it's virtually impossible to show support for that position without also supporting individuals or groups that oppose the Church's position.

 

If it were known that you support gay marriage, it is highly likely that you will be queried as to your affiliations in a TR interview.

 

This is not coercion as one is freely coming to be judged if one is worthy according to the standards set by the Church. Is it mostly a self judging?  Yes.  But Bishops and Stake Presidents have an obligation to protect the membership and maintain the standards and so known red flags will initiate further questions.

 

Even if such a one were to get a TR, a TR is not a ticket to salvation nor a sign that one accepts the Gospel. So again, the answer is no, one cannot support SSM if one hopes for eternal life.

 

 

walletsizedcard2.jpg?w=300&h=200

Edited by Gray
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I still would like to know why the new definition of marriage as between 2 consenting adults

has to be limited to 2 and to adults. 

 

Children cannot consent. As to the number, I don't see a particular reason to limit it to two. On the other hand, the kinds of laws that protect interracial marriage and gay marriage wouldn't really apply to polygamous marriage (groups of 3+ people aren't a protected class). 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

... So the answer of course is no, one cannot support same sex marriage and still be considered worthy for a TR because it's virtually impossible to show support for that position without also supporting individuals or groups that oppose the Church's position. ...

 

(bold mine) 

 

This is the key distinction. The TR questions ask if you support, agree, or affiliate with organizations that oppose or act contrary to the church, not church positions. Otherwise, President Monson would be denied a recommend for paying money and otherwise supporting the Utah Jazz - an organization that serves alcohol and engages in commerce on the sabbath in contravention to church positions.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Children cannot consent. As to the number, I don't see a particular reason to limit it to two. On the other hand, the kinds of laws that protect interracial marriage and gay marriage wouldn't really apply to polygamous marriage (groups of 3+ people aren't a protected class). 

 

Bingo. It's the same reason why people can't marry their cats or pumpkins. Civil marriage is a contractual relationship. You have to be able to consent in order to enter a contract.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

Amazing how many people think this justifies their support for gay marriage.  Consider what Christofferson also said:

 

 

That is essentially paraphrasing the TR standard found in the TR question:

 

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

So the answer of course is no, one cannot support same sex marriage and still be considered worthy for a TR because it's virtually impossible to show support for that position without also supporting individuals or groups that oppose the Church's position.

 

If it were known that you support gay marriage, it is highly likely that you will be queried as to your affiliations in a TR interview.

 

This is not coercion as one is freely coming to be judged if one is worthy according to the standards set by the Church. Is it mostly a self judging?  Yes.  But Bishops and Stake Presidents have an obligation to protect the membership and maintain the standards and so known red flags will initiate further questions.

 

Even if such a one were to get a TR, a TR is not a ticket to salvation nor a sign that one accepts the Gospel. So again, the answer is no, one cannot support SSM if one hopes for eternal life.

 

I have publicly supported gay marriage.  I told my previous Bishop of my disagreement with the Church's position on gay marriage.  I am now serving as a counselor to a Bishop.  And I've also told him of my support for gay marriage.  While your statements here might be true under some local priesthood leaders, they are not true everywhere.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I have publicly supported gay marriage.  I told my previous Bishop of my disagreement with the Church's position on gay marriage.  I am now serving as a counselor to a Bishop.  And I've also told him of my support for gay marriage.  While your statements here might be true under some local priesthood leaders, they are not true everywhere.

Very true.

 

I support gay marriage and female ordination. My SP knows yet I still hold a leadership position. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Like others here, I support gay marriage and not only is the SP aware, the whole presidency and the whole high council knows. I just repeated that support in our most recent meeting. But then I wouldn't say my SP is stereotypical - he kind of likes breaking down church stereotypes, actually.

 

In the interest of total clarity, I don't believe the church (or any other church/religious organization) should be forced to perform or otherwise recognize SSM. I do believe we should get our noses out of everybody else's business and allow others to worship how, what and where they may. Let the Q15 worry about our church, let everybody else worry about what they do.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I have not read every post, but the topic is interesting. My take on it is that the church should only affirm what their beliefs are and let it be at that. If a situation gets out of hand then they should deal with it if it is causing a problem. I think it is time the church gets off the topic and go back to teaching family centered principles. If the church is not careful it could play right into the hands of the adversary and cause a greater harm.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

I have never seen any authorized thought police in the LDS Church; I have seen some who would like to belong to such a group.  Regardless, you can be and think anything you want.  At times, if you attempt to drive others into your own little reality that happens to conflict with the teachings of the Church you may lose your membership, but that does not stop anyone from attending meetings and remaining a participant in the Church. 

 

Now, if I want to be a bit of a twit I would say that those "Utah Mormons" are their own breed and have their own unique culture within the greater culture of the of the saints.  They can do a great deal of good, but it all comes with some peculiarities.  Not wanting to start an argument over Utah, but facts are facts.  8P

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Bingo. It's the same reason why people can't marry their cats or pumpkins. Civil marriage is a contractual relationship. You have to be able to consent in order to enter a contract.

If the law can be changed to allow gays to marry, the law can be changed to allow contracts without consent. Why do we care about the consent of animals on marriage when we don't ask for their consent to be put in a zoo or be the main feature in a Big Mac.  How about the option to marry myself.  If give consent to marry myself, should I be allowed and obtain the tax benefits from it?  This might be particularly useful with those with multiple personality disorders

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to post

If the law can be changed to allow gays to marry, the law can be changed to allow contracts without consent. Why do we care about the consent of animals on marriage when we don't ask for their consent to be put in a zoo or be the main feature in a Big Mac. How about the option to marry myself. If give consent to marry myself, should I be allowed and obtain the tax benefits from it? This might be particularly useful with those with multiple personality disorders

Are these questions meant in jest?

Or are you genuinely asking because you don't know the answers?

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post

Are these questions meant in jest?

Or are you genuinely asking because you don't know the answers?

Half serious and half not.  If the definition of marriage can change once, it can change again.  I would not be surprised that if in the next 30 years people will be allowed to marry anything they want. 

Link to post

Half serious and half not. If the definition of marriage can change once, it can change again. I would not be surprised that if in the next 30 years people will be allowed to marry anything they want.

Your questions are nonsensical because they attempt to compare/equate same-sex marriage to issues that require changing legal realities that are far more fundamental and far-reaching than merely the legal definition of marriage.

ANY legally-binding contact requires at least a few fundamental things that your examples obviously lack:

1) at least two parties. A contract is an agreement between two entities/parties... it outlines an agreement with rights and responsibilities for each party. A single individual cannot civilly "marry himself" (or "herself") not because marriage is defined as a relationship between a minimum of two people, but because any contract requires at least two--one cannot make or enforce a legally binding contract with one's self. An individual can't bequeath inheritance or spousal or parental or custodial rights to himself (or herself) because he (or she) already has all those rights, in and of him/herself. They already own all their own stuff, their own time, and are responsible for their own children. In the event of their own death, they can't inherent anything because they're already dead.

2) the ability to legally consent/comply with the terms of any contract. Marriage isn't defined by the ages of the spouses. However, legal consent prevents minor children from entering into ANY legally-binding contract (marriage, employment, even prosecutuon as an adult) because consent requires that an individual be emotionally, intellectually, and autonomousl capable of entering into a contract. Prior to becoming adults, children lack the ability not just to marry, but to sign ANY legal contracts. They are wards of their parents--that's why kids can't even sign their own school permission slips. Allowing children to "marry" would mean requiring a fundamental change to consentability across ANY and ALL legal contracts... far more than just a function of marriage, which (again) isn't even defined by age, anyway.

3) sentiance, which is closely related to (but slightly different than) consent. Legally, animals cannot give consent because they are not sentient--they cannot give consent because they are not self-aware, let alone aware of a legal obligation to fulfill any social responsibilities to others. Because of their lack of sentience, the law considers them property. Its precicely this lack of personhood which allows zoos to own animals and farmers to slaughter livestock, as your query alludes to. But dogs and cats and horses and even apes or dolphins cannot give consent because, although they posses measures of self-awareness and emotions, they do not and cannot even understand the ability to enter into a reciprocal, legally binding contract. They cannot exercise custody of their owners, and cannot make decisions about their owners' care, in the event of tragedy. I suppose a person who owns their pet may have a marriage ceremony and consider themself married to their pet, and a person may choose to leave their inheritance to their pets--but even in those cases, a human executor is required to officiate over the estate, because the pets themselves cannot legally consent, and they are intellectually capable of making self-determinative choices because of their lack of sentience. Like children, animals aren't excluded from marriage because of marriage's definition, but because animals cannot make or sign up to ANY legal contract. This is the same for toasters or cars or houses or corpses anything else that's inanimate.

Gays and lesbians are different from children, parakeets, Nintendos, dogs, cats, babies, dead bodies, etc precisely BECAUSE gays and lesbians already share the same ability to make legally binding adult decisions for themselves and each other--just like heterosexual couples, and just like interracial couples.

Recognizing our relationships didn't require a change to the legal understanding of consent, the requirement of at least two people to enter a contract, or sentience. Our relationships are reciprocal, just as straight couples' marriages are--it was simply a matter of extending the equal right to consenting adults who were and are legally similarly situated.

It is offensive to slander gays and lesbians by equating us with cattle, chattle, or children. Hopefully this tendency will diminish, as thr majority of such demeaning comments eventually did after marriage equality emerged for mixed-race couples.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post

Bernard, so are you suggesting polygamy will make a comeback?

 

Personally I have no desire for more than one wife. However polygamy never went away. D&C 132 is still in our Scriptures. We still practice a limited form of polygamy in this life. We believe some will practice it in the Celestial Kingdom in the next life.

Link to post

We can support it as long as it doesnt become an organized effort. Not sure exactly how I feel about this stance- kind of wishy-washy if you ask me.

I guess everyone has things the church leaders do and say that they take exceptuon with.

In other words in one way or another everyone is a cafeteria Mormon.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Why would we support it?

Sure we are allowed to.  The Church gives men their agency without fear of discipline as long as we don't fight against the Church.

If we fight the Church on an issue then we get what we deserve.

 

But why would we want to support something our leaders have declared to be sinful (homosexual relations)?

I agree with Mola - total pandering.

So you think the church is pandering? Or is it because YOU disagree with the leaders?

Link to post

So you think the church is pandering? Or is it because YOU disagree with the leaders?

 

No, I think the Church is trying to be as PC as possible in the press while a the same time trying to keep its standards.

I consider that there is a touch of pandering about that.

 

Pandering:

gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.)

 

I don't disagree with our leaders in reaching out, but I wonder if we are taking as firm a line and we should.

Link to post

What is a child?  According to the law, a 16 year old is consider a child but we allow those children to power a 3000 pound car down the road at 70 mph. 

 

Depends.

For driving on the public roads it mostly is 16 years old.

For making a legal contract to buy that car it mostly is 18 years old

For making a legal contract to rent that car it mostly is 25 years old.

Link to post

I think that creating this separation of Church and State where marriage is concerned is a dangerous path and will only lead to confusion in the long run, even if we have the separation seemingly clear right now.

 

Marriage was created by God.  We are now trying to create a separation between God's marriage and man's marriage, which although it already existed is now becoming even wider.

Eventually the time will come in my opinion that the gap between God's marriage and man's marriage will have people attempt to narrow it.  People will not accept forever that they can be married by mortal authority but not by religious authority.

 

I am not for fighting political fights.  I kind of view politics as an English pantomime.  But I am not going to call two men married or two women married ever, because they aren't and cannot be.  I will not call something marriage that is not ordained of God, because marriage belongs to him.

 

 

Your position that God created marriage is only based in your religious views.   Others believe marriage is a social construct and that the state should regulate and license it.  Certainly that is the case in the US.  Personally I think what other countries do could work. Require a state marriage for ALL marriages then let people go solemnize their wedding in what ever additional way they chose... LDS Temple, Catholic wedding, etc.  Then no fear of a Church having to do a marriage of two men or two women.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

No, I think the Church is trying to be as PC as possible in the press while a the same time trying to keep its standards.

I consider that there is a touch of pandering about that.

 

Pandering:

gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.)

 

I don't disagree with our leaders in reaching out, but I wonder if we are taking as firm a line and we should.

 

If the Church is gratifying or indulging others in a immoral desire, what does that mean? 

 

The way I see it, many LatterDay Saints, understand that government should not force religion and religion should not force government (Section 134). Many Saints also realize that the legal arguements against same sex marriage fail and have failed.  There is nothing contradictory to good standing and Temple attendance to accept that God has a standard for marriage, the Saints have a standard for marriage, and society has had variety of standards for marriage (of which some of those standards being racist, where upheld under the guise of God). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

So, current church leaders can't have been inspired about more tolerence of gays? It's just a political/cultural reaction? Are you saying the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve haven't received further light and knowledge on the subject and those reaching out and publicly speaking on the subject (like Christofferson, Ballard, and Oaks, for excample) are not doing so with approval of their leadership? Is the Mormons and Gays site not the official stance of the church?

 

 

Those complaining about this are not different than the NOM types.  Now the leaders are doing something they don't like so the whine and complain just like I can.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...