Jump to content

Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?


Recommended Posts

Your position that God created marriage is only based in your religious views. 

Of course it is.

 

 

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.

 

I have no problem with that solution.  But I don't see it as a permanent one.  If we went the civil wedding/religious sealing route eventually some married SS member couple would bring suit against the Church for them discriminating against a protected class in giving ordinances.

Link to post

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

  Once again you apply YOUR unique religious interpretation on what is and is not sin.  Why should the rest of America have to follow your God says so rules. Others have God says so that disagree with you. 

Link to post

Of course it is.

 

 

I have no problem with that solution.  But I don't see it as a permanent one.  If we went the civil wedding/religious sealing route eventually some married SS member couple would bring suit against the Church for them discriminating against a protected class in giving ordinances.

 

 

I think you are overly paranoid about this.

Link to post

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.

 

 

Religious dogma should not rule what civil laws are and do and don't.  Plain and simple.  Separation of Church and state is a wonderful thing. Theocracy is extremely evil.

Link to post

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.

 

 

Joseph's polygamy was as much a sin as you think homosexual relations are.  You argue against something you think it a sin yet the LDS Church for 50 years fought tooth and nail to preserve a marriage system the rest of the USA thought a sin and they lost. 

Edited by Teancum
Link to post

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.

Another option is to get government out of the marriage business altogether.  Allow religious weddings without requiring a government license.  I would not have mind gotten sealed to my wife without the government issue license.  I don't see why the Church requires it to sealings.  We should not require government permission before we get a priesthood ordinance.  In no other priesthood ordinance do we ask the government "Pretty please, can we do this?" but we require it to be sealed?

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Joseph's polygamy was as much a sin as you think homosexual relations are.  You argue against something you think it a sin yet the LDS Church for 50 years fought tooth and nail to preserve a marriage system the rest of the USA thought a sin and they lost. 

Polygamy is never defined as sin in the scriptures when authorized by God.  As to homosexual marriages, there is as much support for that practice as the practice of a man being married to his favorite goat. 

 

The church did fight for its First Amendment right to practice polygamy.  It did not matter whether others considered it sin or not.   Sin is defined by God.  The government defines what is legal.  What is legal may still be a sin and what is illegal may not be a sin.  

 

Poster removed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I think you are overly paranoid about this.

 

No, just observant.

 

Religious dogma should not rule what civil laws are and do and don't.  Plain and simple.  Separation of Church and state is a wonderful thing. Theocracy is extremely evil.

 

Oh, you are going to LOVE the Millennium.  Separation of Church and State is a telestial necessity that won't last long.

 

Joseph's polygamy was as much a sin as you think homosexual relations are.  You argue against something you think it a sin yet the LDS Church for 50 years fought tooth and nail to preserve a marriage system the rest of the USA thought a sin and they lost. 

 

For now.

Link to post

 

Oh, you are going to LOVE the Millennium.  Separation of Church and State is a telestial necessity that won't last long.

 

Religious theocracies can be very evil and bad just as a democracy or monarchy can be good or bad.  What you refer to will be the best system but that can only occur when Christ sweeps the wicked from the earth and everyone has accepted his authority.  Until that happens, probably best to avoid religious theocracies.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to post

Another option is to get government out of the marriage business altogether.  Allow religious weddings without requiring a government license.  I would not have mind gotten sealed to my wife without the government issue license.  I don't see why the Church requires it to sealings.  We should not require government permission before we get a priesthood ordinance.  In no other priesthood ordinance do we ask the government "Pretty please, can we do this?" but we require it to be sealed?

 

Actually the government can't Seal/Unseal/refuse to Seal you to anyone.

What the government does is control the circumstances for State recognized marriage.

Link to post

Yep - let's drop those verses in Leviticus and Romans...

 

 

You might want to delve into those tribal so called passages of scripture further before you are so assured you understand what they mean.

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.

 

 

As is typical of you, you twist what is said and taught to meet your own view. You do this on political issues. You do this on this issue, You do it regarding evolution. You are as much a  NOMer and cafeteria Mormon as I am. If the Church tosses out something that makes you mind explode you twist it to fit your paradigm.  How amazing.

Link to post

You can believe in a lot of unorthodox things and still be a member of the church.

But why would you want to belong to an organization that upholds values and beliefs in which you fundamentally disagree with?

 

Family, social ties, community support, heritage, tribe.

 

Why do all of you hard liners think that whoever does not toe what YOU think the party line should be should just get out?   Maybe someday you and the LDS church will mature enough to be accepting of diversity.

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.

 

 

I guess when you are an apostle you get to decide,

Link to post

Polygamy is never defined as sin in the scriptures when authorized by God.  As to homosexual marriages, there is as much support for that practice as the practice of a man being married to his favorite goat. 

 

The church did fight for its First Amendment right to practice polygamy.  It did not matter whether others considered it sin or not.   Sin is defined by God.  The government defines what is legal.  What is legal may still be a sin and what is illegal may not be a sin.  

 

 

Adultery is a sin.  Plural marriage is adultery. God tolerated polygamy for a backwards nomadic tribe of camel herders. In the 19th century it is a totally different issue.  There is no where in any God commanded scripture till JS claimed it where God expected plural marriage for exaltation.

Link to post

No, just observant.

 

 

Oh, you are going to LOVE the Millennium.  Separation of Church and State is a telestial necessity that won't last long.

 

 

For now.

 

 

The millennium is a fantasy as much as middle earth is.  I am not too worried. Theocracy is evil.

 

Oh and you for now quip....dream on. If plural marriage was so  important well, it seems the US Government was more powerful than t the LDS God.  The US Government tromped on the LDS Church and they surrendered something they said they never would.

Edited by Teancum
Link to post

Polygamy is never defined as sin in the scriptures when authorized by God.  As to homosexual marriages, there is as much support for that practice as the practice of a man being married to his favorite goat. 

 

The church did fight for its First Amendment right to practice polygamy.  It did not matter whether others considered it sin or not.   Sin is defined by God.  The government defines what is legal.  What is legal may still be a sin and what is illegal may not be a sin.  

 

Poster removed.

 

 

It seems to me that sin is defined by whatever one thinks the God of their religion says about sin. 

 

I am wondering why this poster was removed.   Other than perhaps the goat comment the post did not seem out of line.....

Link to post

I don't believe Martin Luther was part of a backwards nomadic tribe of camel herders.

 

Well that is fair al ML tolerated a plural marriage or two as well. Do LDS accept him as a prophet?

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

As soon as the opponents of gay marriage start making arguments based on bestiality and marrying pets you know they're starting to lose the argument.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

As soon as the opponents of gay marriage start making arguments based on bestiality and marrying pets you know they're starting to lose the argument.

 

 

Good point!

Link to post

If we went the civil wedding/religious sealing route eventually some married SS member couple would bring suit against the Church for them discriminating against a protected class in giving ordinances.

Bull Honkey.

Protected classes cannot sue religions or clergy members to force them to administer any religious ordinances. The Constitution protects religions' freedom to administer their ordinances as they see fit.

Gender and race are protected at stricter levels of scrutiny than sexual orientation, but it is still perfectly legal for churches to refuse to ordain women, or refuse to marry interracial couples. Catholic priests cannot be sued for refusing communion or marriage to divorcees, and Mormons cannot be sued for refusing to marry mixed-religion couples in their temples, even though both marital status and religious affiliation are protected classes.

This nonsense that gays will be able to force churches to marry them is nothing more than bald-faced paranoia and unfounded fear-mongering.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post

It seems to me that sin is defined by whatever one thinks the God of their religion says about sin.

I am wondering why this poster was removed. Other than perhaps the goat comment the post did not seem out of line.....

I'm scratching my head over that one, too, Teancum.

I just spent a lot of time responding to one of CD's posts and was looking forward to his answer. It's a shame he was removed.

Link to post

The millennium is a fantasy as much as middle earth is.  I am not too worried. Theocracy is evil.

 

Oh and you for now quip....dream on. If plural marriage was so  important well, it seems the US Government was more powerful than t the LDS God.  The US Government tromped on the LDS Church and they surrendered something they said they never would.

 

Well, I know you admit to being a doubting member or something similar, but the Millennium is biblical, christian, LDS, and probably a couple of others.  ;)

It's no more "fantasy" than that carpenter from Galilee that returned from the dead.

  • 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...