MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Interestingly according to what I hear and read a great majority of the polygamists out there have absolutely no interest in polygamy becoming legal.
Unless they happen to have a tv show on TLC.

They want to continue to worry about being locked up for being polygamists?  That seems really really weird.  The Sisters Wives people (which you alluded to) are seeking to have polygamy de-criminalized in Utah.  As far as i am aware they are not seeking for the government to acknowledge polygamist marriages, but maybe that has changed since i last checked.

[rongo]

I don't think worries about being prosecuted are on the radar, any more, for the rank-and-file. Maybe for leaders, but not the everyday Joes and Josephines. Even more so, now, with the loosening of social mores on sexuality. If the specter of prosecution isn't a threat, what benefit is there for civil recognition of their marriages?

[Daniel2]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think worries about being prosecuted are on the radar, any more, for the rank-and-file.

Aren't TLC's Brown Family the ones that were forced to move to Nevada because they became "too public" and Utah decided to move forward with prosecuting them, culminating in the current legislation wending its way through the legal system...?

That was my understanding.  Which seems to indicate that persecution for becoming too public is still alive and well...

Sister Wives’ polygamy case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court

Posted 11:54 am, May 13, 2016, by Ben Winslow, Updated at 12:07pm, May 13, 2016

SALT LAKE CITY — Reality TV polygamist Kody Brown and his wives will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider its lawsuit challenging Utah’s historic ban on plural marriage.

The decision to ask the nation’s highest court to consider the polygamy case comes the same day a Denver-based federal appeals court rejected the Brown family’s request to re-hear the case. In a ruling Friday morning, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined an “en banc” request for the entire panel of judges to reconsider the case. The court previously dismissed the Brown’s lawsuit declaring that Utah prosecutors did not really intend to go after the family for polygamy.

Polygamist Kody Brown (center) and his wives (left to right) Janelle, Meri, Robyn and Christine. (Image courtesy TLC)

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah.  We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote in an email to FOX 13, adding:

“At issue is the most basic right in our legal system: the right to be heard in a federal court.  The lower court found that the Browns left the state after months of abusive treatment by the government, which denied them basic protections under our Constitution.  All families should have access to the courts when targeted by the government in this way.  The panel decision leaves a chilling message for citizens in dealing with their government.  The 10^th Circuit panel ruled that a prosecutor can publicly declare a family to be felons, keep them under criminal investigation, and denounce them for their religious beliefs without fear of being held accountable in a court of law. The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court.  This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse.  The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

The Utah Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on the 10th Circuit Court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t heard a polygamy case in more than 100 years, when it upheld polygamy bans under the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision, but their argument will at least initially be limited to the issue of standing with the courts.

Brown and his wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn, sued the state of Utah in 2012 over its ban prohibiting polygamy. The family found themselves under investigation by Lehi police shortly after they appeared on their cable TV show “Sister Wives.” They argued it infringed on their right to privacy and religious freedom. A federal judge in Salt Lake City sided with them and struck down a portion of the state’s ban, making it no longer a crime to cohabitate with multiple people and purport to be married.

The state appealed and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court reversed the ruling. Since the appeals court ruling, some in Utah’s polygamous communities have considered approaching the Utah State Legislature to decriminalize plural marriage.

[rongo]

I'm talking about the ones who aren't on a reality show and aren't agitating for legalization. There are polygamists in the Salt Lake area, and even throughout Arizona, and everyone knows who they are. They wear pioneer-era dresses and pioneer hair to Walmart. My wife went to school with a polygamist girl in Taylorsville, UT. They had a store, and a boy on a dare went in to apply for a job. It was strictly a family business . . .  Nobody is even thinking about prosecuting them. The Sister Wives people are enough of a burr under the saddle that they might go after them, but not the everyday polygamists. 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Aren't TLC's Brown Family the ones that were forced to move to Nevada because they became "too public" and Utah decided to move forward with prosecuting them, culminating in the current legislation wending its way through the legal system...?

That was my understanding.  Which seems to indicate that persecution for becoming too public is still alive and well...

 

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They want to continue to worry about being locked up for being polygamists?  That seems really really weird.  The Sisters Wives people (which you alluded to) are seeking to have polygamy de-criminalized in Utah.  As far as i am aware they are not seeking for the government to acknowledge polygamist marriages, but maybe that has changed since i last checked.

"Fundamentalist churches are already grappling with the issue. The Apostolic United Brethren (AUB), from which tradition Kody Brown hails, has voiced its disapproval of his lawsuit. In a public sacrament meeting on Sunday, August 7, 2011, Dave Watson of the Priesthood Council warned that “no one has the right to go off half-cocked and take it upon himself to try to decriminalize plural marriage on the coat-tails of legislation passed on gay rights.” The only acceptable way to approach the matter is to reverse the Reynolds decision, Watson insisted. He further stated, “Do I want to see [plural marriage] dragged through the courts and decriminalized as a result of the homosexual movement? I will not stand for it. The ladder is leaning against the wrong wall.” - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2011/08/speculation-upon-the-kody-brown-polygamy-case/

"  Fundamentalists usually suggest that decriminalization is the course we need to take. Particularly pious fundamentalists have warned that if polygamy ever becomes legalized, then those who earnestly live the Principle of Plural Marriage will face the greatest challenge of all: keeping the purity of their covenant." - http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a1625/legalize-polygamy/

"“We don’t want it legalized. We want it decriminalized,” she says of plural, spiritual marriages. “We'd just as soon they [government officials] stay out of our marriages. Our marriage is for all time and eternity. The priesthood is the important thing, not the law of the land.”" - http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/25/sister-wives-explained-a-fundamentalist-mormon-polygamy-primer/comment-page-1/

 

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm talking about the ones who aren't on a reality show and aren't agitating for legalization. There are polygamists in the Salt Lake area, and even throughout Arizona, and everyone knows who they are. They wear pioneer-era dresses and pioneer hair to Walmart. My wife went to school with a polygamist girl in Taylorsville, UT. They had a store, and a boy on a dare went in to apply for a job. It was strictly a family business . . .  Nobody is even thinking about prosecuting them. The Sister Wives people are enough of a burr under the saddle that they might go after them, but not the everyday polygamists.

I work right beside that Taylorsville store.  Still polygamist run, mostly by teenagers.

[rongo]

I'll have to tell her! 

We have a girl at our high school who was at the middle school as an 8th grader. She's a Jessop from Colorado City. She and her siblings are all in foster care scattered around Arizona. We taught some COPs (children of polygamy) in Salt Lake when I was a ward mission leader in the late 90s, and they had to be interviewed by an apostle before they were baptized. A woman we are close friends with moved from our stake to Utah County a year ago. She, too, was a COP and had an apostle interview for her baptism. She is an active LDS member now, but her dad lives in Tucson. There are polygamists all over the place, and not just in Utah.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Our family ward was polled with the young men and young women of my ward in Springville and 70 percent of the young men polled was in favor of gay marriage and 100 percent of the young women who were polled are in favor of gay marriage. when opened to a Q&A with the YM YW most said "It's their choice" when bringing up gay marriage. just remember these are the future millennial leaders of the church.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't want to reveal what ward in Springville because I don't want people tracking down who I am.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hey, Scott,

The link you posted for "this website" takes us to page 1 of this thread.  Can you find the link and repost?

Thanks,

Daniel

EDIT:  I just noticed that you invoke the name of the Dr, later in your post, as Nicolosi.  Assuming you are speaking of Dr. Joseph Nicholosi, he is one of the major proponents of so-called reparative/conversion therapy and a former member of NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), the largest religiously-based reparative/conversion therapy organization.  The APA has denounced reparative/conversion therapy, or sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).  See here.  I myself underwent such therapies with two different LDS therapists who studied under Nicolosi and/or adopted similar theories regarding the suppression of "SSA": Jeff Robinson and David Matheson.  In my opinion, both advocate for false hope and encourage marriage to women, something that I and far too many men did.  Therapy sessions included pounding punching bags with baseball bats while repeatedly screaming "DAD! DAD! DAD!" and then acting concerned when I said I didn't want to keep doing that.  8 years later after I was unable to continue in a failed mixed-orientation marriage, I called Dr. Robinson and asked him if I could have access to my file to see his notes on me.  He told me he didn't keep files on his clients and had nothing I could see.  When I asked him, "If you don't keep files, how do you know your therapies work or last?," he literally hung up on me and never again returned any of my calls.  I wouldn't wish reparative/conversion therapy on my worst enemies.  It is snake oil, and Nicolosi is one of the worst.  I don't mind when therapists of any given religious orientation resolve to help men who experience attractions to members of their own gender though helping them find realistic alternatives to live according to their religious convictions and desires... but Nicholosi  and the men who follow similar types of therapy are not the answer, in my view.  If anyone is seriously considering this type of therapy, I would invite you to do your homework and learn all you can about it from ALL available sources, rather than cherry picking sources that sound supportive while outright dismissing those that aren't.

Sorry about the erroneous link. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. 

As I indicated, I know very little about Nicolosi. I just saw the website and it looked interesting to me. I'll try to familiarize myself more with it. The last thing I want to do here is promote snake oil. 

Edited to add:

Here's the correct link

I'll fix it in my prior post as well.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Dr. Jeff Robinson is my brother-in-law and from what Daniel has said here and in the past, we have a very different view of his theories (of course, my experience is simply in discussing with Jeff over the last 35 years or so his theory and research, I have no way of knowing the experience of being in therapy with him).  If anyone is interested inJeff's ideas, please message me and hopefully I can track down his website if it is still up or otherwise connect you with his writings (his dissertation is sitting in my husband's office, but considering its length I don't see offering to send a copy of that useful, plus there has been more up-to-date stuff out there).

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dr. Jeff Robinson is my brother-in-law and from what Daniel has said here and in the past, we have a very different view of his theories (of course, my experience is simply in discussing with Jeff over the last 35 years or so his theory and research, I have no way of knowing the experience of being in therapy with him).  If anyone is interested inJeff's ideas, please message me and hopefully I can track down his website if it is still up or otherwise connect you with his writings (his dissertation is sitting in my husband's office, but considering its length I don't see offering to send a copy of that useful, plus there has been more up-to-date stuff out there).

Thanks for your input.

Looks like I'm going to have to do some studying and arrive at my own conclusion.

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Our family ward was polled with the young men and young women of my ward in Springville and 70 percent of the young men polled was in favor of gay marriage and 100 percent of the young women who were polled are in favor of gay marriage. when opened to a Q&A with the YM YW most said "It's their choice" when bringing up gay marriage. just remember these are the future millennial leaders of the church.

That's interesting, but is what I've seen in our ward too among our youth that I've heard express an opinion.  

[california boy]

I also went to David Matheson. who works in Dr. Nicholosi office in Los Angeles.  At first, his counseling was quite helpful as he worked with me about my relationship with other family members.  Then he told me that it was time to start working on reparative therapy.  He would have me stand in the middle of the room and told me to pretend there is a huge hole so deep I could not see the bottom and then yell at the very top of my lungs in as much anger as I could muster.  I told him that I had no anger at my parents or anyone else.  But he insisted that I yell anyway.  So I stood up envisioned a big hole and gave out a half hearted yell.  But honestly I felt no anger and thought the whole thing was stupid.  He kept encouraging me to  yell louder, from deep in my soul.  It was ridiculous.  The second season that he told me to do this, I left and never went back.  For a therapist to try and get me to be angry at my father for no reason at all is not therapy.  It is snake oil.  I would never take what either one of these guys said as being credible.

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Dr. Jeff Robinson is my brother-in-law and from what Daniel has said here and in the past, we have a very different view of his theories (of course, my experience is simply in discussing with Jeff over the last 35 years or so his theory and research, I have no way of knowing the experience of being in therapy with him).  If anyone is interested inJeff's ideas, please message me and hopefully I can track down his website if it is still up or otherwise connect you with his writings (his dissertation is sitting in my husband's office, but considering its length I don't see offering to send a copy of that useful, plus there has been more up-to-date stuff out there).

 

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for your input.

Looks like I'm going to have to do some studying and arrive at my own conclusion.

As I mentioned previously, I would absolutely encourage anyone to study all sides of the therapies being proposed.

I would imagine that hearing about a therapist's theories and going through them as a patient are likely to be two entirely different experiences.  Additionally, I was in therapy with Dr. Robinson twenty years ago, so candidly, I don't know how he practices today.  However, when I called him 8 years ago (after my divorce, leaving the church, and coming out), it IS true that he told me he doesn't keep records and hung up on me when I asked how he knows his therapies work long-term, and he never returned a handful of messages I left after that.

As I mentioned in a previous post, "I don't mind when therapists of any given religious orientation resolve to help men who experience attractions to members of their own gender though helping them find realistic alternatives to live according to their religious convictions and desires... but Nicholosi  and the men who follow similar types of therapy are not the answer, in my view."  To any extent that Dr. Robinson may have shifted away from "reparative/converstion" therapy to a more realistic method (without promoting unrealistic and unhealthy promises of "changing" attractions or "becoming" heterosexual for any who are exclusively homosexual) in order to help such men learn to control their existing attractions in accordance with their religious beliefs, I would find that to be far more acceptable.

However, in the interest of full and open discussion, you CAN see his website here:  http://www.theguardrail.com/  I would not be surprised to know that you (Scott) and other devout Latter-day Saints would feel that his approach sounds sound, reasonable, and in keeping with LDS principles.  The problems I have is that his approach (as advertised on his website, at least) still seems to advocate and promote the idea that it's possible to change one's homosexual attractions (what the APA refers to as SOCE), which have been found to be dangerous and ineffective in their own right.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[california boy]

On 10/31/2016 at 1:07 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see same-sex attraction as an identity label so much as a technical description of a feeling. Nor do I see it as inherently promoting an "us vs. them" mentality.

In the neighborhood where I grew up, it was common among some of the less-enlightened folk to refer to anyone hailing from south of the Rio Grande as Mexican, regardless of whether the person was actually from Mexico. 

Later the term chicano came into vogue, but it too was sometimes used inaccurately, as it denotes someone from Mexico or of Mexican descent. 

These days, it is standard to use the term Hispanic or Latino/Latina. Much better as an all-inclusive descriptor, because it does not denote or connote a subset of the population.

It's the same with same-sex attraction. It can be used generically without incorrectly implying that everyone referred to acts on that attraction.

 

BlueDreams is entitled to her opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with it.

 

Just so you know, a Hispanic is someone who's native language is Spanish.  So you could be from Spain or any other spanish speaking country and be Hispanic.  This descriptive has nothing to do with whether someone comes from south of the border.  Someone who is Latino means they are from Latin America.  So you could be from Brazil and your native language is Portugees and be Latino.  A lot of people use those two terms interchangeably.  They are not.

While same sex attraction may be a term that describes who the person is attracted to the term is not a term to use interchangeable with gay when describing a person.  If you look up the terms in the dictionary.  there is no definition of the word same sex attraction.  If you look up the word gay, their is.  A lot of people use those two terms interchangeably.  They are not.

While there is no definition for Same-sex attraction in a regular dictionary, there is a definition in the Urban Dictionary that you might be interested in to help you understand the difference.  

 

Urban Dictionary:

Quote

"Same sex attraction" (SSA) is a term used mostly by conservative Christians to avoid using the term gay when referring to men who are attracted to men or men who have sex with men (MSM). Often, SSA refers to gay men only, and not lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered persons.

Unlike many mainstream mental health practitioners and associations which do not think homosexuality is a disease or mental illness, groups which use the term SSA often believe that all persons are heterosexual and homosexual thoughts or sexual relations are deviant. What most people would consider to be a "gay person" is a "heterosexual with a homosexual problem" for many who use the term SSA.

Those who use the term SSA deny the reality that the vast majority of LGBT people can't be "cured" of their sexual orientation.

Though at this point, I doubt very much that you want to understand the difference.  

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just so you know, a Hispanic is someone who's native language is Spanish.  So you could be from Spain or any other spanish speaking country and be Hispanic.  This descriptive has nothing to do with whether someone comes from south of the border.  Someone who is Latino means they are from Latin America.  So you could be from Brazil and your native language is Portugees and be Latino.  A lot of people use those two terms interchangeably.  They are not.

While same sex attraction may be a term that describes who the person is attracted to the term is not a term to use interchangeable with gay when describing a person.  If you look up the terms in the dictionary.  there is no definition of the word same sex attraction.  If you look up the word gay, their is.  A lot of people use those two terms interchangeably.  They are not.

While there is no definition for Same-sex attraction in a regular dictionary, there is a definition in the Urban Dictionary that you might be interested in to help you understand the difference.  

 

Urban Dictionary:

Though at this point, I doubt very much that you want to understand the difference.  

SSA is a term used exclusively by fundamentalist religious groups. It's definitely not an appropriate term to use outside of those narrow circles. 

[Calm]

I know another of his clients who feels the therapy he went through with Jeff was lifesaving and he is, by their own fully informed choice, happily married in a long term relationship with the one woman he has come to love and lives without feeling overwhelmed or controlled by his attraction to men.  Jeff, imo, is and was realistic in his claims from what I have seen among his patients (which is very few though long term) and from what conversations I had with him.

As to the records issue, sometimes people's view of what is being said comes out quite differently.  Communication is never perfect and the assumptions we bring to the experience if significantly different may result in understanding things being said quite differently.

I would be very surprised if Jeff wasn't following APA Guidelines:

http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/record-keeping.aspx

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Calm

[california boy]

Some might also be interested to know that David Matheson was one of three people who wrote the Evergreen manual for the church.  Evergreen was recently replaced by Northstar as the church's organization to help Mormons deal with being gay.  There used to be an Evergreen group organized in the Bay Area about 20 years ago.  They would meet at the interstake center next to the Oakland temple.  I used to attend weekly meetings with about 7 or 8 other guys.  Then one day the leader informed the group that he was moving to San Francisco and moving in with his boyfriend.  Others in the group that night told everyone that while they liked hanging out with the guys, they were moving on as well.  It ended up being the last meeting for the group.

A couple of years later, an elderly couple from Palo Alto contacted me and told me they had been assigned by their stake president to restart the group.  They asked me if I would help them.  I was more than happy to do what I could to get the group started.  I found the comradary to be quite helpful, knowing that I was not alone.  So even though I had left the church by that point, I tried to do what I could to get the group going again.  But there was no interest.  After couple of meetings with them, me and one other guy we quit meeting.  

I thought David Matheson was a helpful therapist up until he started to do his reparative therapy thing.  Like Daniel, I have no idea if he is still trying to do reparative therapy.  I hope not.  It's not therapy, it is snake oil.

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

SSA is a term used exclusively by fundamentalist religious groups. It's definitely not an appropriate term to use outside of those narrow circles. 

I am glad at least someone gets it.  

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Our family ward was polled with the young men and young women of my ward in Springville and 70 percent of the young men polled was in favor of gay marriage and 100 percent of the young women who were polled are in favor of gay marriage. when opened to a Q&A with the YM YW most said "It's their choice" when bringing up gay marriage. just remember these are the future millennial leaders of the church.

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

That's interesting, but is what I've seen in our ward too among our youth that I've heard express an opinion.

 

And since the Church operates by Common Consent AND these youth will be the Bishops and Stake Presidents (and GA's) in not so many years, the culture of the Church could easily embrace SSM eventually.
But that would have zero relationship to what God commands.

For most, we get the Church we want and make.  For the very few, we want only what God wants, no matter how society views it.
And that will be the end result.
 

• "Many will doubtless make shipwreck of their faith, and will be led away by the allurements of sin into by and forbidden paths, yet the kingdom will not be taken from this people and given to another, but a people will come forth from among us, who will be zealous of good works, willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in His ways, and who will walk in His paths."   President Daniel H. Wells (2nd counselor in the First Presidency).

That core group of members seems to be getting smaller every day.

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And since the Church operates by Common Consent AND these youth will be the Bishops and Stake Presidents (and GA's) in not so many years, the culture of the Church could easily embrace SSM eventually.
But that would have zero relationship to what God commands.

For most, we get the Church we want and make.  For the very few, we want only what God wants, no matter how society views it.
And that will be the end result.

I agree.  But, I believe that God doesn't exclude as this new policy does.  I believe if the church moves towards being more inclusive to gay members, that would be what "God wants".  I'm hoping that the youth of the church (who will be our future leaders) will be the instruments He uses to fulfill this too.

 

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That core group of members seems to be getting smaller every day.

By "core group", do you mean orthodox believers or how would you define them?

.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  But, I believe that God doesn't exclude as this new policy does.  I believe if the church moves towards being more inclusive to gay members, that would be what "God wants".

Many members agree with you.
Problem is they haven't been able to show scripturally and doctrinally why that would be the case (other than a few prooftexts about loving everyone that ignore other scripture).

Quote

By "core group", do you mean orthodox believers or how would you define them?

I would define them as those who are willing to follow God at all costs, no matter what.
Those with no agenda other than to do exactly as God commands.
Just as President Wells stated -  willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in His ways, and who will walk in His paths.
 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Many members agree with you.
Problem is they haven't been able to show scripturally and doctrinally why that would be the case (other than a few prooftexts about loving everyone that ignore other scripture).

And what scriptures and church doctrine can you quote stating that God desires to exclude gays who enter a SSM (and their children) from His church?  (And, not just the general "sinners" quotes...but specific to this topic as many do not believe gays who are in a faithful marriage are not sinners.)

.

Edited November 2, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And what scriptures and church doctrine can you quote stating that God desires to exclude gays who enter a SSM (and their children) from His church?  (And, not just the general "sinners" quotes...but specific to this topic as many do not believe gays who are in a faithful marriage are not sinners.)

The wider you set the goalposts, the less likely you are to stop false ideas from getting through.

God defines marriage:
Genesis 2: 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Any definition outside of this is not marriage.

Homosexuality is a sin
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Christ taught that while the Mosaic law didn't have to be followed any longer that it still had correct principles behind its commands.

Requirements for baptism
D&C 20: 37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.


SSM is not marriage as defined by God, SS relationships are sinful based on scripture.  Baptism requires repentance of sin.  Those in SSM or who support a SSM should not be baptized.
Now, wrest away so that these scriptures don't mean what they say.