Would You Attend A Wedding For A SSM?

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems that the offensive on this thread is being taken mostly against those who have expressed that they would choose not to attend such a wedding. I don't see the same level of aggressiveness going the other direction.

I wonder why that is.

 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems that the offensive on this thread is being taken mostly against those who have expressed that they would choose not to attend such a wedding. I don't see the same level of aggressiveness going the other direction.

I wonder why that is.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Maybe a better example would be if your son or daughter were having a child out of wedlock (living together rather than married), would you attend the birth or go to the hospital to see the baby?  Would you attend a baby shower for them? 

As I believe that a child does far better when reared in an intact home with a father and mother who are married and committed to each other and to the welfare of their mutual offspring, I would do what could reasonably be done to urge the unwed mother to place the child for adoption. If she declined to follow that advice, I would be as supportive as I could in her efforts to rear the child on her own.

A baby shower typically occurs before the birth, which is quite early along in the scenario. I couldn't in good conscience attend the shower since, in my view, it would be promoting a choice which I would earnestly hope the prospective mother would not make, that being to raise the yet-to-be-born child without benefit of being married to the child's father.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems that the offensive on this thread is being taken mostly against those who have expressed that they would choose not to attend such a wedding. I don't see the same level of aggressiveness going the other direction.

I wonder why that is.

 

Because those who would attend are being more Christ-like?

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

See the post by me that follows yours

The one where you didn't answer my question?

Edited March 16, 2016 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

To me, a better parallel would be the scripture in Moroni 8 that says baptism of little children is solemn mockery unto the Lord and asking whether one would attend a Catholic baptism of someone's infant if invited to attend.

 

With luv,

BD  

This strikes me as quite a different proposition.

If I as a non-Catholic am attending a Catholic baptism, presumably my non-Catholic status is well understood by those who know me or care about my being there, and it could be reasonably presumed that my presence is a show of friendship and esteem for the family of the infant and an expression of sharing in their joy over the birth, not as an expression of assent to theological beliefs or ritual.

A gay "wedding" is different in that it is reasonably inferred that all in attendance approve of the couple's illicit sexual relationship and are, in fact, celebrating it. As I've already stated, this I cannot do.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Because those who would attend are being more Christ-like?

No, it's not Christlike to countenance deliberate and continual sin. Christ never did that.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
To delete unnecessary testiness.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This strikes me as quite a different proposition.

If I as a non-Catholic am attending a Catholic baptism, presumably my non-Catholic status is well understood by those who know me or care about my being there, and it could be reasonably presumed that my presence is a show of friendship and regard for the family of the infant and an expressing of sharing in their joy over the birth, not as an expression of assent to the theological beliefs that are being expressed there.

A gay "wedding" is different in that it is reasonably inferred that all in attendance approve of the couple's illicit sexual relationship and are, in fact, celebrating it. As I've already stated, this I cannot do.

 

Let me reword your sentence slightly to show you how it is no different. 

If I as a Mormon am attending a gay wedding, presumably my Mormon status and position on gay marriage is well understood by those who know me or care about my being there, and it could be reasonably presumed that my presence is a show of friendship and regard for the individual/s or family of the individual/s and an expression of sharing the joy of our friendship, not as an expression of assent to the matrimony itself. 

A Catholic "baptism" is different in that it is reasonably inferred that all in attendance approve of the mockery of Christ and are, in fact, celebrating it...

In essence, you are saying that it is only wrong because other people might suspect you are there for the wrong reasons. 

Edited March 16, 2016 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Let me reword your sentence slightly to show you how it is no different. 

If I as a Mormon am attending a gay wedding, presumably my Mormon status and position on gay marriage is well understood by those who know me or care about my being there, and it could be reasonably presumed that my presence is a show of friendship and regard for the individual/s or family of the individual/s and an expression of sharing the joy of our friendship, not as an expression of assent to the matrimony itself. 

A Catholic "baptism" is different in that it is reasonably inferred that all in attendance approve of the mockery of Christ and are, in fact, celebrating it...

Your contrived rewording of my sentence does not change my view in the slightest. I still earnestly believe the two propositions are quite different. I think I've been sufficiently clear as to why.

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Not read the whole thread...my daughter may eventually choose a same sex marriage seeing as she has bisexual attractions and is agnostic.  She knows my beliefs and my desires for her as well as her dad's and brother's family; we all care very deeply for her and want her to be happy, but even more so want her to have joy.  I know that her choices are not based on just being happy or comfortable, but she tries hard to do the right thing.  And so even if she makes a choice I think is not the best choice for her, I am willing and even eager to let her and others know that I know she is trying her best to do the right thing.  So yes I would go (unless something really, really bizarre happens and her personality completely changes and I no longer trust her to try and make the right choices, but that is currently as likely to happen to me as to her and if it were to happen, a ssm would probably be low on the list of things we were worrying about).

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

So, it appears, your own personal perspective on what is moral is what you use to judge whether or not you would attend such a wedding, is that correct?  How is that any different than someone choosing to not attend a same sex wedding?

 

No, that's not how "it appears" (way to misrepresent me, T-Shirt).  Read BlueDream's post beneath mine as we're saying the same thing.

When you give examples of two people getting married and one is a minor or child and the other an older adult, that's (the minor) the deciding factor for me.  

Do you and Scott (who gave you a rep point) disagree?

I would not support a marriage of a 15 year old and 45 year old because it involves a child, not 2 consenting adults.  I wouldn't care if they were a same sex or polygamous or monogamous marriage.

But maybe you guys would be fine with that as long as it wasn't a SSM?  

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by JulieM

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

For those of you who have said no...no way..even if family...would you attend their funeral?  Seriously, I hope not.

Yes, I would attend a funeral.  The two events (a wedding and a funeral) are not comparable for the purposes of this discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

For those that have said they would NOT attend a same-sex wedding:

1. If invited, would you ever attend a close friend's son or daughter's baptism (Baptist, Catholic, etc.)?
2. If invited, would you ever attend a close friend's son or daughter's bar mitzvah?
3. If invited, would you ever attend close friends' marriage in a church not of the LDS Faith?

Whether you answered yes or no to any of the above, would you say that attendance at an ordinance of another Faith's religious ordinances (that conflict with LDS doctrines or beliefs) is synonymous with endorsing those practices...?

EDIT: I hadn't read till the end of the thread, and I notice this issue has already been raised...

I find it fascinating that the Book of Mormon calls the baptism of children "an abomination," and joining another Faith is also grounds for apostasy, yet some still insist that attending such an occasion is different than attending a same-sex wedding.

Incidentally--these are NOT hypothetical scenarios, for me.  During my youth, while I was very actively-LDS, my devoutly-LDS parents encouraged me to accept my friends' bar mitzvah and catechism invitations (both of which I attended), and we also all attended the baptisms of the children of a couple of my parents' friends/colleagues.  None of us ever worried about whether our good friends thought we were "endorsing" their religious beliefs as equal to or superior to our own LDS values and beliefs.  We loved and supported our friends.  Period.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Daniel2

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your contrived rewording of my sentence does not change my view in the slightest. 

I don't intend to change your personal view or decision to attend or not attend a gay wedding.  That is your personal choice, and I don't think that you are "wrong" per se, for making it.  But I would appreciate a recognition that I am not "wrong" for making my choice, that a fellow believer can in good conscience, without violating his moral code, and in good church standing, attend a gay wedding.  

The following does not feel contrived to me.  It rings true. What part feels unrealistic to you exactly?

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

If I as a Mormon am attending a gay wedding, presumably my Mormon status and position on gay marriage is well understood by those who know me or care about my being there, and it could be reasonably presumed that my presence is a show of friendship and regard for the individual/s or family of the individual/s and an expression of sharing the joy of our friendship, not as an expression of assent to the matrimony itself. 

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't intend to change your personal view or decision to attend or not attend a gay wedding.  That is your personal choice, and I don't think that you are "wrong" for making it.  But I would appreciate a recognition that I am not "wrong" for making my choice, that a fellow believer can in good conscience, without violating his moral code, and in good church standing, attend a gay wedding.  

 

 

I repeat, it seems that the ones on this thread who are being the most aggressively challenged are the those of us who have indicated we would not attend. So the "live-and-let-live" sentiment here does seem one-sided.

Quote

The following does not feel contrived to me.  It rings true. What part feels unrealistic to you exactly?

No need to repeat it. I said it seems contrived to me, and I stand by that.

And I already said I feel I made myself clear on why I believe the two hypothetical situations (same-sex "wedding" and Catholic baptism) are quite different. I stand by that, too.

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

While I am saddened by those that would decline to attend a same-sex wedding due to religious objections (as I was when three of my four brothers, all LDS, declined to attend my husband's and my wedding), I respect their choices, and very much appreciate those who advocate welcoming the couple with inclusion and respect afterwards (referring specifically to Smac, here).  Although we were both saddened by my missing family members, at the end of the day, my husband and I really didn't want anyone at our wedding that would have dampened the spirit of the day or felt uncomfortable in sharing in the joy and happiness we felt from those who were attending out of genuine love and support.

I will be eternally grateful for my sole brother (who was serving as his ward's bishop at the time), my sole sister-in-law (also LDS, but ironically married to a different one of my brothers), my witty and fun-loving, devout LDS aunt, and my kind, devout, loving, and extremely Christ-like mother, all of whom chose to attend.  Their values regarding supporting the church's stance haven't changed--and I've never asked them to change them--and their love and charity shine as strong as their testimonies and support of the church.

However, I would make one small suggestion when it comes to letting the couple know you won't be attending: there is no need to offer an explanation of your reasoning why.

Same-sex couples likely are aware of your religious beliefs, and were likely being friendly and polite in extending an invitation.  The last thing they need, when approaching what should be a day of happiness and joy, is to receive a bunch of letters explaining your religious beliefs objecting to same-sex relationships. 

From my view, it's entirely sufficient, as well as respectful, to offer a simple and polite RSVP decline along the lines of, "I'm sorry I can't attend your wedding..." or "I regret to say that I have to decline your invite..." followed by something along the lines of "...but I look forward to meeting him/her..." or "...but we look forward to seeing the two of you..." or "...but we'd love to have dinner sometime..." or "...you're always welcome in our home..." etc. 

When it comes to being polite and respectful, their wedding is no more the time and place for you to testify against their relationship than declining the baptism of the baby of a Catholic friend would be the time to offer your beliefs about infant baptism. 

Chances are, they already will know (or can probably guess) why.

When all is said and done, my husband and I have chosen not to return the same sentiments towards those of my LDS family members who felt unable to support us, and we continue to attend their baby blessings, baptisms, mission farewells, temple weddings (waiting outside, of course), and the like.  We certainly don't attend those occasions because we endorse or support Mormonism--we attend because we love and support our family.  And they already know that's why we do, and don't confuse that we're endorsing the LDS Church.  

Edited March 17, 2016 by Daniel2

[T-Shirt]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, that's not how "it appears" (way to misrepresent me, T-Shirt).  Read BlueDream's post beneath mine as we're saying the same thing.

When you give examples of two people getting married and one is a minor or child and the other an older adult, that's (the minor) the deciding factor for me.  

Do you and Scott (who gave you a rep point) disagree?

I would not support a marriage of a 15 year old and 45 year old because it involves a child, not 2 consenting adults.  I wouldn't care if they were a same sex or polygamous or monogamous marriage.

But maybe you guys would be fine with that as long as it wasn't a SSM?  

 

I don't believe I have misrepresented you at all.  Marriage is legal in six states for 15 year olds with parental consent.   You don't like it because your personal standards deem it to be immoral.  It is no different from those who choose not to attend a same sex wedding on moral grounds.  The fact that a 15 year old is a minor is irrelevant, the parents and the state believe the child is mature enough, your objection is based purely on your own moral position.  No difference.

Edited March 17, 2016 by T-Shirt

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, that's not how "it appears" (way to misrepresent me, T-Shirt).  Read BlueDream's post beneath mine as we're saying the same thing.

When you give examples of two people getting married and one is a minor or child and the other an older adult, that's (the minor) the deciding factor for me.  

Do you and Scott (who gave you a rep point) disagree?

I would not support a marriage of a 15 year old and 45 year old because it involves a child, not 2 consenting adults.  I wouldn't care if they were a same sex or polygamous or monogamous marriage.

But maybe you guys would be fine with that as long as it wasn't a SSM?  

 

I gave him a rep point because I agree with what he seems to me to be saying: In theory, at least, you would have moral qualms against attending weddings under some circumstances. It's just a matter of what happens to trip your morality alarm.

For my part, I disapprove of homosexual behavior. Is there really any surprise there?

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I really like BlueDreams parallel and think it deserves a little more attention.  She said:

For those who would choose not to attend a gay marriage of a friend or family member, would you attend a friend or family member's Catholic baptism of an infant?

If so, how is it any different?

I've generally thought Moroni 8 to be a denunciation of apostate behavior.  Jeff Lindsay put it this way:

Quote

Mormon's harsh words were not written about modern sincere believers in Christ who have been raised with infant baptism as part of their traditions of faith. When he was writing in the fourth century, before the final collapse of his people, he was desperately striving to stamp out recently kindled fires of apostasy set by theological arsonists. His targets were wicked apostates who were denying the mercy and justness of God and perverting the ways of God. It wasn't just a misunderstanding that they and all their peers had inherited, but a perversion they were introducing, presumably for their own gain. 

Mormon's letter to Moroni has quite a different feel once we step back and consider the setting, viewing it as a historical document from a tough general and prophet fighting the spiritual apostasy that would contribute to the destruction of his nation. The apostates were wicked and surely would perish for what they were doing, if they did not repent. The harsh tone might make sense in the ancient historical context. From General Mormon in 300-something A.D. taking on wicked apostasy from the truth they had received from the Lord, strong language condemning the apostates may have been in order. But if a modern Joseph Smith were just making this up to sell books, drawing upon his environment to write about the theological errors of his fellow Christians, that harshness would risk further alienating a huge part of the market and just wouldn't make much sense, in my opinion. 

That's pretty much my view.  So I don't think today's Catholics should be held to the same standard vis-à-vis performance of ordinances that Mormon used to condemn apostate behavior "in 300-something A.D."  That being the case, I would happily attend a friend or family member's Catholic baptism of an infant.  For me, I can differentiate between Catholic "traditions of their fathers, which are not correct" and celebrating/endorsing a same-sex wedding.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I would attend a funeral.  The two events (a wedding and a funeral) are not comparable for the purposes of this discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

For the record, I too would attend a funeral, and I agree there is no parallel between the two events.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

I would attend. I don't see it as much different from families who attend an LDS baptism they are less than thrilled about, or non-member parents who are willing to stand outside the temple.  Being high on marijuana is not nearly the same as people trying to make their lives better even if we don't agree with the method of improvement. 

I think this is a great comparison.  The baptisms of my children have been attended by non-member friends.  One baptism was attended by a gay friend of the family.  These individuals didn't agree with the ordinance but they supported my children and family.  It's sad to see so many members here who don't feel that they can do the same by attending a wedding. 

I would attend.  Joyfully.  And I think it's great that this young man (in the OP) is making a marital commitment to his boyfriend. 

[BlueDreams]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems that the offensive on this thread is being taken mostly against those who have expressed that they would choose not to attend such a wedding. I don't see the same level of aggressiveness going the other direction.

I wonder why that is.

 

It could be more a sense of "why?" That you're reading as aggressive. Personally I don't see much of a difference in tone, particularly when a number of these are comparing enabling active drug addicts to attending a wedding.  The "why" comes in part probably by who would attend. A good percentage (I'd say half when scanning the people..including myself) don't actually believe  Ssm as something condoned by God or having eternal place...yet we'd also hypothetically attend. So pointing to a moral obligation doesn't seem to fully fly.  Plus there are other behaviors that we allow or even enable to happen that aren't ok in our books. Infant baptism as I mentioned. But I could also think of the coffee pot my family owns solely for my grandma to make her coffee at our house. One's not a biggie (coffee) but the other is definitely bigger...the ordinance is considered a solemn mockery according to the BoM. It's the closest parallel I can think of to the church's stance on Ssm today. And yet if any of my family was Catholic I would go to their baby baptism.

Beyond that for me at least it's a bit of a head scratcher to be so strict in general, such as a baby shower for a single mom. That's usually held about a month before the baby is due. If she is so sure, pushing an ideal she isn't planning to live seems to be erring on the side of following an ideal to the point where the person is lost. And doing so could potentially cause more pain and isolation than anything else. It certainly isn't likely to change their mind about their decision. So I don't get it. What I'm seeing is these options

- don't go to the wedding because of a theological difference and a belief that it may give the appearance of supporting evil...even though the people there would likely know you don't and at the risk of alienating family/friends.

- go and support a friend in their major life experience even if it doesn't meet ones morals/ideals. Leave a window open for mutual respect and trust by showing love. Also probably leaving a door to talk about faith down the road.

 

So for me at least it's not aggression it's wondering how the first choice makes sense?

 

With luv,

BD

[Wanderer7]

I feel like no matter how much I may love another person, my own salvation is at risk any time I willingly associate with actions or ideals in opposition to the gospel... And it doesn't get much more opposite than SSM according to church policy (agree with it or not, it was determined by God's chosen prophet and apostles and has been declared by multiple members of that body as revelation). To attend a wedding celebrating a SSM is akin to pitching my tent towards Sodom, in my view.

My response has nothing to do with not loving the person and everything to do with ensuring I can honestly answer "no" to a certain temple recommend interview question regarding my affiliations and sympathies. That's not to say that attending one SSM wedding disqualifies anyone from attending the temple per se, but it may put us at risk for developing sympathies that would disqualify us if we are honest with ourselves.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

For those of you who have said no...no way..even if family...would you attend their funeral?  Seriously, I hope not.

Jeanne, from my perspective, it's unfortunate that when it comes to attending temple wedding ceremonies or speaking at (though not attending) family members' funerals hosted in LDS chapels, the LDS Church prevents those of us who have left the church to fully participate.  That strikes me as a sad irony, given the church's intended goal of uniting families... though I fully understand that most active Latter-day Saints view it differently, and why they do.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Daniel2

[UtahTexan]

No, I would not.  Acquiescence is approval.