Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Would You Attend A Wedding For A SSM?


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Depends on the parent's fitness. Could be from anywhere from congratulations to specifc prayers about sperm and egg never meeting.

 When my sister in law had a miscarriage, I was not too sad about it even though she was broken up about it.  I can't support purposely bringing children into the world in the improper manner.  She needs to get married first. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Everyone sees things a little differently.  I do see a distinction between an infant being baptized and SSM.  Both practices are against the teachings of the Lord.  One clear distinction is that infant baptism, though an abomination, is a sincere attempt to follow the scriptures of the need for baptism.  Those involved simply misunderstand the purpose of baptism and applying it to individuals who are too young to receive it/  They are trying to follow the scriptures but err in doing so.  SSM is completely different.  One can't error in following the scriptures on this point.  There is no provision for SSM in the scriptures in any form.  I can at least partially get why Catholics do infant baptism.  I don't agree with it but I get it.  Also in an infant baptism, the baby receiving it is not under condemnation from God.  It is just a baby.  All it cares about is food and sleep.  This is not true with SSM.  Those who are getting married are under further condemnation by God for it.  It is for this reason that I would be more willing to go to an infant baptism than a SSM.   I can't even foresee any situation in my life of attending either. I know very few Catholics and far fewer gays.  Plus I have no problems coming up with excuses to avoid anything that I find objectionable.

Like Pogi mentioned, this is definitely the argument that makes the most sense....though to be fair, it only works for those in SSM who were/are mormon or at least rejected their religion. For many other gay people there are plenty who are religious and are following their religion's tenets to the best of their ability by living lives of fidelity to their partners. And they're married within their church.

 I have personally heard of stories where the SSM was healing. One who was married for 20 years...and it became a way for both partners to later on become LDS a while after their divorce (I kid you not, I heard it first-person....and that was only one half of a crazy story). And though, like infant baptism, it isn't true and in LDS terms an abomination before God....Like GingerRed mentioned, you never know how God may work. And He can use every experience as a method to get us to greater truth/healing in time.  

18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If somebody was to attend a SSM, would they see it ok to offer congratulations to the couple?  For me, I would be uncomfortable with that as offering congratulations to a single woman who gets pregnant.  I have a sister in law who is trying to have a baby with her boyfriend of a number of years.  Should I be hopeful that she is successful and celebrate it if she does have a baby.

I find my emotions in theory compared to practice are 2 different things. In theory both make me a little sad...I don't like it when anyone moves away from what I feel are true principles. In practice, I have found myself compassionate and even happy for experiences that at times went directly against my values. Recently I've had several ex/post/leaving-LDS clients and I've listened to their stories. In most I get the sense that if I had their primary assumptions as an active LDS, I may have done the same thing. I don't, of course. But I can be happy that they are finding reprieve in their personal and often emotional conflicts. I also felt a degree of divine healing in a woman's sexual relationship who was "living in sin" at the time.  

And though I wish people wouldn't get pregnant out of wedlock for very personal reasons....I also know from very personal experiences that a baby brings love/joy whenever it's wanted. And even when it isn't at first (myself being in that category). So I would congratulate her/them.  And show probably added support, because I know how rough/vulnerable it can be when you're single and raising children. I wouldn't want my values make a difficult situation any harder.

For SSM, I think I would. Obviously it's not in the  right direction, according to my values. But I can respect that brings them a measure of happiness and peace. I think of what little I know my cousin has gone through and some of the pains that are still fresh....and if she decided to marry her girlfriend I would know she was probably doing so because she genuinely loves and cares for another individual and is willing to be committed to loving and caring for another individual. I wouldn't say something I didn't believe was true (like, may this last into the eternities). But I could wish her well in her path and that she may find goodness wherever she's at. And I can congratulate her on finding a relationship that means so much to her.

Basically there are things that I can find worthwhile to congratulate in both cases. And that's what i'll be congratulating: their joys.

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

I wouldn't attend, for reasons well-articulated by Smac97.  (Plus, as a long-term confirmed bachelor, I have, alas, a certain antipathy about weddings, anyway ... :huh:;))   In part for that reason, it's not the sort of event I feel at ease at ... (that goes for a fairly wide variety of social events, too, regardless of the orientation or beliefs of the participants).

Now, all of that having been said, there's nothing in my religious convictions that demands that I force someone else to accept my paradigm(s).  If I were a cake-baker, or if I provided another wedding-related service, I wouldn't feel any qualms about doing so in this case, either.  (I would be too practical to lose out on business in such a case, and I wouldn't want to foment what I see as needless ill will for my business and/or for my religion.)  

That having been said, I support both the right of business owners to refuse business because they feel it violates their religious conscience and the right of aggrieved gays whose business has been refused to sue, but I would limit the latter's recovery to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged them and what an accepting business owner did charge them, along with such related expenses as travel. No gay law-fare; no putting people out of business because they're not politically correct; and so on.

While I wouldn't attend the wedding and probably wouldn't attend the reception, I would send a card with a nice sentiment, and/or a gift (that, again, to me, falls into the category of not demanding that people accept my paradigm).

Now, I've made nobody happy:  Surely, there will be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who feel that even such tepid, passive support as I advocate here is not pleasing to the Lord, and of course, nothing but being the first one there and the last one to leave, along with leading the crowd in repeated, hearty "Huzzahs!" for the happy couple, will be pleasing to anyone who is gay.

Let the tomato-throwing from all sides begin! ;):D

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wouldn't attend, for reasons well-articulated by Smac97.  (Plus, as a long-term confirmed bachelor, I have, alas, a certain antipathy about weddings, anyway ... :huh:;))   In part for that reason, it's not the sort of event I feel at ease at ... (that goes for a fairly wide variety of social events, too, regardless of the orientation or beliefs of the participants).

Now, all of that having been said, there's nothing in my religious convictions that demands that I force someone else to accept my paradigm(s).  If I were a cake-baker, or if I provided another wedding-related service, I wouldn't feel any qualms about doing so in this case, either.  (I would be too practical to lose out on business in such a case, and I wouldn't want to foment what I see as needless ill will for my business and/or for my religion.)  

That having been said, I support both the right of business owners to refuse business because they feel it violates their religious conscience and the right of aggrieved gays whose business has been refused to sue, but I would limit the latter's recovery to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged them and what an accepting business owner did charge them, along with such related expenses as travel. No gay law-fare; no putting people out of business because they're not politically correct; and so on.

While I wouldn't attend the wedding and probably wouldn't attend the reception, I would send a card with a nice sentiment, and/or a gift (that, again, to me, falls into the category of not demanding that people accept my paradigm).

Now, I've made nobody happy:  Surely, there will be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who feel that even such tepid, passive support as I advocate here is not pleasing to the Lord, and of course, nothing but being the first one there and the last one to leave, along with leading the crowd in repeated, hearty "Huzzahs!" for the happy couple, will be pleasing to anyone who is gay.

Let the tomato-throwing from all sides begin! ;):D

You don't appear to take into consideration that forcing others to comply with one's demands is the whole point of the cakebaking brouhaha.

In the civil law, you would be presuming a cake-baking contract between each and every baker with each and every person desiring that a cake be baked.  The measure of damages you propose presupposes this, as contractual damages are the difference between what you contracted for and the amount you had to pay elsewhere for the same goods/services.

Just where in the Contracts Clause of the Constitution does one find such a contract?

Fact is, the whole point of outrageous fines/damages is in order to bully the populace into submission to the new societal norm implicit in the SCOTUS' ruling and various state and local enactments.

That and the drama that ensues.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You don't appear to take into consideration that forcing others to comply with one's demands is the whole point of the cakebaking brouhaha.

In the civil law, you would be presuming a cake-baking contract between each and every baker with each and every person desiring that a cake be baked.  The measure of damages you propose presupposes this, as contractual damages are the difference between what you contracted for and the amount you had to pay elsewhere for the same goods/services.

Just where in the Contracts Clause of the Constitution does one find such a contract?

Fact is, the whole point of outrageous fines/damages is in order to bully the populace into submission to the new societal norm implicit in the SCOTUS' ruling and various state and local enactments.

That and the drama that ensues.

Let he who is without sin cast the first tomato! ;):D 

I'll defer to your considerably greater legal erudition, but I believe it won't take long under the regime I have proposed for would-be plaintiffs to realize that the return for engaging in gay law-fare over cake-baking (and other such services) isn't worth the effort. :)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Let he who is without sin throw the first tomato! ;):D 

Well  ...  you did invite it  ...  and wouldn't you have been disappointed if nobody's taken the bait?

Link to comment
On 3/19/2016 at 11:57 PM, carbon dioxide said:

 When my sister in law had a miscarriage, I was not too sad about it even though she was broken up about it.  I can't support purposely bringing children into the world in the improper manner.  She needs to get married first. 

Sad.  Would you have still felt okay about the end situation had she got an abortion..because she was bringing a child into the world in the improper manner?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wouldn't attend, for reasons well-articulated by Smac97.  (Plus, as a long-term confirmed bachelor, I have, alas, a certain antipathy about weddings, anyway ... :huh:;))   In part for that reason, it's not the sort of event I feel at ease at ... (that goes for a fairly wide variety of social events, too, regardless of the orientation or beliefs of the participants).

Now, all of that having been said, there's nothing in my religious convictions that demands that I force someone else to accept my paradigm(s).  If I were a cake-baker, or if I provided another wedding-related service, I wouldn't feel any qualms about doing so in this case, either.  (I would be too practical to lose out on business in such a case, and I wouldn't want to foment what I see as needless ill will for my business and/or for my religion.)  

That having been said, I support both the right of business owners to refuse business because they feel it violates their religious conscience and the right of aggrieved gays whose business has been refused to sue, but I would limit the latter's recovery to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged them and what an accepting business owner did charge them, along with such related expenses as travel. No gay law-fare; no putting people out of business because they're not politically correct; and so on.

While I wouldn't attend the wedding and probably wouldn't attend the reception, I would send a card with a nice sentiment, and/or a gift (that, again, to me, falls into the category of not demanding that people accept my paradigm).

Now, I've made nobody happy:  Surely, there will be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who feel that even such tepid, passive support as I advocate here is not pleasing to the Lord, and of course, nothing but being the first one there and the last one to leave, along with leading the crowd in repeated, hearty "Huzzahs!" for the happy couple, will be pleasing to anyone who is gay.

Let the tomato-throwing from all sides begin! ;):D

Well, I like your response.  It's honest, caring and not judgmental of others who may choose to attend.  So...no tomatoes from me :) 

Link to comment

For those thinking about attending a gay wedding, Key and Peele have a good skit on gay wedding advice.  You can google it, as there are certain portion that are probably PG 13.

"Q:  So none of us are gay, so I would assume we would all sit in the straight section."

"Q:  When in the ceremony do we sing, 'Over the Rainbow.'"

"I'm nervous, because I can only do 'jazz hands' for about three minutes before my hands start to cramp."

"Q:  Does the fake priest look like a real priest, or like a nun?"

 

"Q:  Do we throw something other than rice?

"A:  What, sir, what would you throw other than rice?

"Q:  I don't know, Maybe couscous.  Or skittles."

 

Edited by toon
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wouldn't attend, for reasons well-articulated by Smac97.  (Plus, as a long-term confirmed bachelor, I have, alas, a certain antipathy about weddings, anyway ... :huh:;))   In part for that reason, it's not the sort of event I feel at ease at ... (that goes for a fairly wide variety of social events, too, regardless of the orientation or beliefs of the participants).

Now, all of that having been said, there's nothing in my religious convictions that demands that I force someone else to accept my paradigm(s).  If I were a cake-baker, or if I provided another wedding-related service, I wouldn't feel any qualms about doing so in this case, either.  (I would be too practical to lose out on business in such a case, and I wouldn't want to foment what I see as needless ill will for my business and/or for my religion.)  

That having been said, I support both the right of business owners to refuse business because they feel it violates their religious conscience and the right of aggrieved gays whose business has been refused to sue, but I would limit the latter's recovery to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged them and what an accepting business owner did charge them, along with such related expenses as travel. No gay law-fare; no putting people out of business because they're not politically correct; and so on.

While I wouldn't attend the wedding and probably wouldn't attend the reception, I would send a card with a nice sentiment, and/or a gift (that, again, to me, falls into the category of not demanding that people accept my paradigm).

Now, I've made nobody happy:  Surely, there will be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who feel that even such tepid, passive support as I advocate here is not pleasing to the Lord, and of course, nothing but being the first one there and the last one to leave, along with leading the crowd in repeated, hearty "Huzzahs!" for the happy couple, will be pleasing to anyone who is gay.

Let the tomato-throwing from all sides begin! ;):D

And just how,  pray tell, do you suppose I am now able to throw a tomato at you?

Besides,  I like tomatoes so I wouldn't throw one at you even if I could.

Link to comment
On 3/19/2016 at 11:57 PM, carbon dioxide said:

 When my sister in law had a miscarriage, I was not too sad about it even though she was broken up about it.  I can't support purposely bringing children into the world in the improper manner.  She needs to get married first. 

Mmm-kay.  How far would you take the "I can't support it"?  Surely, if the infant had lived, you wouldn't have committed infanticide?  What if it had lived, but had been murdered by someone else?  Would you "mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort" in such a circumstance, notwithstanding the manner of its coming into the world?  While I think we should "stand as witnesses" for what is right, at the same time, I'm not convinced of the utility of imparting living water to someone who is in need of it through a firehose set at full-blast.  If we're not careful, in our zeal to do the right thing, we run the risk of coming down on the wrong side of the "love-the-sinner-but-hate-the-sin" line.  No, Christ cannot "look upon sin with the least degree of allowance."  However, he isn't simply a cheerleader, hoping we make it to a higher plane: He meets us where we are and lifts us up; we should do our best to do the same for our brothers and sisters who need lifting.

My $0.02.  Even if your mileage varies, I wish you well.

Here are some more of my thoughts along these lines:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/encouragement-from-those-in-the-scriptures/

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Sad.  Would you have still felt okay about the end situation had she got an abortion..because she was bringing a child into the world in the improper manner?

NO.  I was not hoping that she lost the baby.  An abortion is an intentional act while a miscarriage is not.  Just saying that I did not see it a tragedy that she lost the child.  I am sorry that I just don't see bearing children out of wedlock as a thing to get excited about.  Keep in mind that I keep my opinion to myself.  Even though she is attempting to go through fertility treatments to get pregnant, I say nothing.  It is her life but I am not going to be praying and fasting that she has success.  At least not until she gets married.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Mmm-kay.  How far would you take the "I can't support it"?  Surely, if the infant had lived, you wouldn't have committed infanticide?  What if it had lived, but had been murdered by someone else?  Would you "mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort" in such a circumstance, notwithstanding the manner of its coming into the world? 

With all due respect, Ken (and with acknowledgment that you are one of the few posters whom I agree with almost all of the time), are you not engaging in the fallacy of the false dilemma here? Carbon dioxide was not condoning infant murder. He was only saying that he was not too broken up over the fact that his sister did not succeed in her efforts to deliberately bring a child into the world under far-less-than-optimal conditions.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

I agree that parents shouldn't bring children into the world in suboptimal conditions. While I don't claim to know the inscrutable mind of the Lord of the Universe, it's certainly possible that, in some cases, miscarriages are one tool that He uses to prevent that from happening (though it doesn't account for all of the times when He, for whatever reason, allows others to misuse their agency and children are brought into the world under such circumstances anyway).  And I agree that if parents do choose to bring children into the world in suboptimal conditions, every effort should be made to provide optimal conditions once they get here (through adoption, et cetera).  But even if different choices would have put us (or others) in a vastly different, better place, as the great philosopher, Colonel Sherman T. Potter of M*A*S*H fame once said, "If you ain't where you are, you're noplace." 

And no matter how much we try to avoid it, we experience pain from poor choices (both our own choices and the choices of others) from time to time: it's inescapable. I agree that the best response to such pain is to put two and two together and to realize (or to help others to realize), "Hmm.  If I [or s/he] hadn't made Choice [X], I [or s/he] wouldn't be experiencing Consequence [Y].  If I don't want to experience this pain in the future [or if s/he doesn't] I [or s/he] had better make different choices in the future when presented with similar circumstances."  

Now, as a third party, who's perhaps less a participant and more a spectator in the drama, we have at least two choices when we see the pain that results from others' poor choices; we can say either, "Well, I saw that coming from a mile away!  Make Choice [X] and you'll get Consequence [Y].  Serves him or her right! Told him or her so!  Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as other men and women are (so foolish, so stupid, not as good as I am at keeping the commandments, et cetera)."  Or, we can say, "Yes, if s/he hadn't made Choice [X], s/he wouldn't have experienced Consequence [Y], but that doesn't mean that the pain, et cetera, from Consequence [Y] is any less real, any less difficult, and so on."

Yes, we may see Consequence [Y] resulting from Choice [X] from a mile away.  But, while choices and their consequences certainly aren't created equal, who among us hasn't made foolish or stupid choices, hasn't flubbed at keeping this or that commandment, and so on?  Who wouldn't be able to look at us and tell us they saw Consequence(s) [Y] coming from our Choice(s) [X]?  When I get on the other side, I'm not going to say, "Jesus, I deserve my final reward because I was really good at keeping the commandments."  Rather, I'm going to say, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.  The only way I'm going to merit my final reward is not because of anything I've done, but rather because of what Thou hast done for me."

One of my favorite lines (it's more than a line; it would actually be a soliliquoy if she were alone) from The Prodigal Son is when Joanne tells Jim, "You've got to realize that it isn't just your brother with the 'big sins' that needs Jesus Christ.  You need him just as desperately as any of the rest of us do.  Just like cocaine and alcohol almost destroyed your brother, jealousy and bitterness are trying to destroy you.  If you think you can overcome this bitterness by yourself, you're just fooling yourself.  Tom couldn't overcome his problems alone, and you can't, and I can't. None of us can make it halfway through this life, or into the next, without the Savior."

Yes, if carbon dioxide's sister-in-law had made different choices, she would have been spared the pain of a miscarriage, but that doesn't make the pain any less real. And we don't have to agree with the choices that brought about that pain in order to empathize with others in their pain.   I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating here.  We may be invited to offer testimony against others at the judgment.  In doing so, we may talk about how that person's poor choices caused others pain and otherwise adversely affected them, fully expecting The Judge to throw the biggest book he can find at the offender.  Instead, he'll look at us with an expression of tender paternal regard and say, "I know this person made serious choices that adversely affected others.  But I wonder how much you know about the burdens he was carrying ..."

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree that parents shouldn't bring children into the world in suboptimal conditions. While I don't claim to know the inscrutable mind of the Lord of the Universe, it's certainly possible that, in some cases, miscarriages are one tool that He uses to prevent that from happening (though it doesn't account for all of the times when He, for whatever reason, allows others to misuse their agency and children are brought into the world under such circumstances anyway).  And I agree that if parents do choose to bring children into the world in suboptimal conditions, every effort should be made to provide optimal conditions once they get here (through adoption, et cetera).  But even if different choices would have put us (or others) in a vastly different, better place, as the great philosopher, Colonel Sherman T. Potter of M*A*S*H fame once said, "If you ain't where you are, you're noplace." 

And no matter how much we try to avoid it, we experience pain from poor choices (both our own choices and the choices of others) from time to time: it's inescapable. I agree that the best response to such pain is to put two and two together and to realize (or to help others to realize), "Hmm.  If I [or s/he] hadn't made Choice [X], I [or s/he] wouldn't be experiencing Consequence [Y].  If I don't want to experience this pain in the future [or if s/he doesn't] I [or s/he] had better make different choices in the future when presented with similar circumstances."  

Now, as a third party, who's perhaps less a participant and more a spectator in the drama, we have at least two choices when we see the pain that results from others' poor choices; we can say either, "Well, I saw that coming from a mile away!  Make Choice [X] and you'll get Consequence [Y].  Serves him or her right! Told him or her so!  Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as other men and women are (so foolish, so stupid, not as good as I am at keeping the commandments, et cetera)."  Or, we can say, "Yes, if s/he hadn't made Choice [X], s/he wouldn't have experienced Consequence [Y], but that doesn't mean that the pain, et cetera, from Consequence [Y] is any less real, any less difficult, and so on."

Yes, we may see Consequence [Y] resulting from Choice [X] from a mile away.  But, while choices and their consequences certainly aren't created equal, who among us hasn't made foolish or stupid choices, hasn't flubbed at keeping this or that commandment, and so on?  Who wouldn't be able to look at us and tell us they saw Consequence(s) [Y] coming from our Choice(s) [X]?  When I get on the other side, I'm not going to say, "Jesus, I deserve my final reward because I was really good at keeping the commandments."  Rather, I'm going to say, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.  The only way I'm going to merit my final reward is not because of anything I've done, but rather because of what Thou hast done for me."

One of my favorite lines (it's more than a line; it would actually be a soliliquoy if she were alone) from The Prodigal Son is when Joanne tells Jim, "You've got to realize that it isn't just your brother with the 'big sins' that needs Jesus Christ.  You need him just as desperately as any of the rest of us do.  Just like cocaine and alcohol almost destroyed your brother, jealousy and bitterness are trying to destroy you.  If you think you can overcome this bitterness by yourself, you're just fooling yourself.  Tom couldn't overcome his problems alone, and you can't, and I can't. None of us can make it halfway through this life, or into the next, without the Savior."

Yes, if carbon dioxide's sister-in-law had made different choices, she would have been spared the pain of a miscarriage, but that doesn't make the pain any less real. And we don't have to agree with the choices that brought about that pain in order to empathize with others in their pain.   I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating here.  We may be invited to offer testimony against others at the judgment.  In doing so, we may talk about how that person's poor choices caused others pain and otherwise adversely affected them, fully expecting The Judge to throw the biggest book he can find at the offender.  Instead, he'll look at us with an expression of tender paternal regard and say, "I know this person made serious choices that adversely affected others.  But I wonder how much you know about the burdens he was carrying ..."

Bravo!!

Link to comment
On 3/21/2016 at 10:48 AM, Jeanne said:

Sad.  Would you have still felt okay about the end situation had she got an abortion..because she was bringing a child into the world in the improper manner?

 

Hmm a choice between worst and worst.  Don't tell me there are no other choices.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...