Bryce Cook's article reviewing church's stance on gay marriage

[cacheman]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do we need to make a choice between the First Presidency and Lester Bush?

Are they not now in agreement for the most part?  Didn't the first presidency come around eventually to agree with Bush's conclusions? 

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

From the article

" Jesus never addressed gay marriage or what gay people should do related to relationships.  The Book of Mormon, meant for our day and considered the most correct book of scripture, never addresses gay marriage or sexual activity."  

I HATE arguments like this.  Jesus did not address a lot of issues specifically.  Should one take that to mean he might endorse people using crack cocaine or other drugs for recreational purposes?  He never spoke against against using cocaine.  On can justify pretty much any modern day sinful practice like having sex with robots (they are developing these things) under the label "well Jesus never mentioned anything against it".  The real question would be is there anything at all in the scriptures that would remotely hint to Jesus accepting SSM? 

Can anyone really envision Alma,. Nephi, the brother of Jared, or Moroni even accepting the very idea of SSM with any degree of seriousness?

I take the view that Jesus and Satan are polar opposites.  Whatever Jesus is for Satan is against and vice versa.  The almost never agree on anything.  So what would be their respective positions on SSM.  If Jesus is for SSM, then Satan would be against.  If Jesus is against SSM than Satan would be for it.  Using the scriptures, I lean heavily towards one side over the other.

Which scriptures would you use to support that?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Are they not now in agreement for the most part?  Didn't the first presidency come around eventually to agree with Bush's conclusions? 

[EDIT] Cook, not Bush. Sorry for the confusion.

Not sure which conclusions you mean. It appears they would involve repudiating and restructuring the Declaration on the Family and all priesthood, lineage, patriarchal, and temple doctrines, no? That's kind of foundational.

Quote

It is my hope that church members and leaders might sincerely ponder the foundation of their own beliefs on this topic, study it out and sincerely ask God if it is right – just as President Kimball did when he began to see the harmful fruits of the church’s doctrines on race.

If the answers are not forthcoming or fully apparent at this time, might it be better to be less strident and more humble about what we claim to be the will of God? If we fear to err, might it be better to err on the side of mercy and agency, and trust more in the Savior’s atonement than in our own imperfect knowledge? At a minimum, if church leaders realize their words are taken by the membership as God’s own words, and their pronouncements and rhetoric on this issue affect the lives of thousands in such a significant way, can they perhaps speak less stridently and with more compassion?

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If we do I pick the former. Why?

Sorry for the confusion. My question was about choosing between the FP and Bryce Cook. See my edit.

I would choose the First Presidency, but perhaps us Fogeys of the Old School need to die off so the Church can progress. Who knows? 

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, cacheman said:

Are they not now in agreement for the most part?  Didn't the first presidency come around eventually to agree with Bush's conclusions? 

Sorry for the confusion. I should have typed Bryce Cook. See my edit. Yes, they did for the most part. Not sure if that also means they have to come around to agree with Cook or stick with Elder Maxwell, but time will tell.

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry for the confusion. My question was about choosing between the FP and Bryce Cook. See my edit.

I would choose the First Presidency, but perhaps us Fogies of the Old School need to die off so the Church can progress. Who knows? 

 

I would choose the First Presidency too.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would choose the First Presidency too.

Are you a Fogey of the Old School?

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you a Fogey of the Old School?

Nope. I am a rebel without a clue that hopes to get into the Kingdom of Heaven as a jester.

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope. I am a rebel without a clue that hopes to get into the Kingdom of Heaven as a jester.

With your credentials, I don't see a problem.

[readstoomuch]

Nobody wants to hate or harm any one over LGBT issues.  Having said that, I think it is children who suffer the most.  

My daughter is so politically correct that she lets my grandson where nail polish and  eye shadow.  He asked about it, because his mom wears them.  He wore his hair long, partly because he wanted to and it seemed like my daughter liked him being different or being called a girl.  Her grandfather asked why he didn`t get his hair cut because he looked like a girl.  That went over really well and she just waited all that much longer.  That is a small thing compared to wearing nail polish or eye shadow.  Is my grandson going to be confused by this?  Why is my daughter encouraging it?  She doesn't have a thing to do with the Church right now.  She is all things LGBT, feminist rights, etc. ad nauseam.  Are we not supposed to teach gender identity any more?  Because it seems like my daughter isn't.  In other words, are we sending so many mixed messages that young people wonder whether they are another gender or have SSA?  So treating people with tolerance and respect on LGBT issues, yes.  Letting children wander into the LGBT issues at the whim and wisp of the wind, no.  I won`t respond to any questions or comments about those who are born with LGBT tendencies.  Different issue for me.  

I am not saying that the Church could never change, but I think I would have to be convinced that God wants it that way (ok our Heavenly Parents).  I also think we still have a duty to teach our children their gender identity and about marriage norms, including avoiding fornication and adultery. 

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

Nobody wants to hate or harm any one over LGBT issues.  Having said that, I think it is children who suffer the most.  

My daughter is so politically correct that she lets my grandson where nail polish and  eye shadow.  He asked about it, because his mom wears them.  He wore his hair long, partly because he wanted to and it seemed like my daughter liked him being different or being called a girl.  Her grandfather asked why he didn`t get his hair cut because he looked like a girl.  That went over really well and she just waited all that much longer.  That is a small thing compared to wearing nail polish or eye shadow.  Is my grandson going to be confused by this?  Why is my daughter encouraging it?  She doesn't have a thing to do with the Church right now.  She is all things LGBT, feminist rights, etc. ad nauseam.  Are we not supposed to teach gender identity any more?  Because it seems like my daughter isn't.  In other words, are we sending so many mixed messages that young people wonder whether they are another gender or have SSA?  So treating people with tolerance and respect on LGBT issues, yes.  Letting children wander into the LGBT issues at the whim and wisp of the wind, no.  I won`t respond to any questions or comments about those who are born with LGBT tendencies.  Different issue for me.  

I am not saying that the Church could never change, but I think I would have to be convinced that God wants it that way (ok our Heavenly Parents).  I also think we still have a duty to teach our children their gender identity and about marriage norms, including avoiding fornication and adultery. 

Probably not a big deal but parents using their kids to live out the fantasy of being progressive by encouraging them like this is a little odd.

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Which scriptures would you use to support that?

There are ZERO, and I mean ZERO passages that endorse homosexual behavior in any form in the scriptures.  We have plenty of passages that endorse and accept heterosexual marriage (monogamy and polygamy) but nothing for same sex marriage or marriage to anything else that exist whether living being or inanimate object.

Whenever a verse that mentions homosexuality in any context is always in the negative.   People like to almost "lawyer" their way through the passage to find some sort of exception or excuse that perhaps in some circumstances it might be accepted.  You sort of do it in your article

"The New Testament briefly mentions homosexuality. Paul condemns it. But it’s a brief passage with little clarification, and many people interpret his condemnation of it not against gay marriage and relationships in general, but the specific activity of homosexual promiscuity and prostitution, which was how gay behavior was practiced at the time."

The fact that gay marriage was not be practiced at that time does not mean that Paul would have seen it differently if it was.  If it was not being practiced, it would make no sense for Paul or anyone else to address or condemn a non-existent practice.  There is simply nothing in the New Testament text that gay marriage would be seen any differently than homosexual promiscuity or prostitution in terms of how God would see it.  Paul certainly does not allude to any possible situation where homosexuality in any context including SSM would or could ever been seen as acceptable. 

Fornication which is sexual relations between unmarried people is universally condemned in the scriptures as far as I have seen.   Fornication is not restricted to heterosexuals.  When homosexuals have sex, it includes the sin of fornication.   This fact shows that Paul would consider homosexuality as sinful beyond just instances of promiscuity or prostitution.  Unmarried gays commit fornication and that debukes the assertion that the "condemnation of it not against ... relationships in general."   Unmarried homosexuality between consenting gays is fornication.

Since the scriptures never entertain the idea of same sex marriage nor even give a remote hint that it could ever be seen as legitimate, the concept is foreign or alien to the scriptures in every respect.  So if a foreign or alien concept is attempted to be instituted into the Church that goes against everythign we know God has given to man since the days of Adam, who do you think would most likely author such an alien transplant?  Jesus or Satan?   Of course could be some doctrine that God has held out all these years and yet to reveal to man but if I was a gambling man,  I would put the odds that Satan is behind this at about 99.99%.  Perhaps you might put the odds at Jesus being behind it at 99% but I can't do it. 

Edited August 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Has there been a discussion of this? I looked for a thread to bump but didn't find one.  https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

This article has been compared to Lester Bush's article on race and priesthood published in Dialogue that had great effect on Pres. Kimball. The article is very long but I guess he is condensing it for publication in Dialogue. 

I did a review of the article http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/bryce-cook-mormon-church-gay-marriage/

What I like about Bryce's article, and Bryce in general, is that he's smart and level headed and supportive of the church, even though he has strongly opposing views on LGBT issues. I think the case he presents is pretty strong. And given the angst over this issue and the rising support among members, I see the church moving on this issue within 30 years.

 

I'm working my way through it and am definitely conflicted by this article. I too would like to see a better narrative for my LGBT brothers and sisters. But it needs to be doctrinally congruent to me. I haven't seen an argument for it that really has been solid. It works more in silence than answers and ignores general parameters of what marriage is ideally in several books of scripture. Including more modern scripture. The disonnance isn't enough. 

Another is the oddity of reading a current history from a different perspective. several of the descriptions to events in the last few years aren't as I would have described them. Maybe it's because I'm younger and the peers I talk to are generally more flexible. But my experience of the events and patterns in conversation weren't the same and I definitely paid attention to this issue. 

Some of the factual claims are not as solid as he's proporting them. Such as celibacy being a doctrine of apostasy. He states this as fact but his fact is based on the book "Mormon doctrine," a lack of topics on this in the gospel library, and absolutely nothing official. It's not the only time he does such. 

His use of science and newer revealed light and truth is problematic. For one, science and research isn't anywhere near closed on either the development, parameters, and expression of sexuality in humans...even for heterosexuals. They're barely catching up with female straight sexual expression. And most models I find about women are still kinda hokey. The watered down stuff society eats is absolutely stupid in so many ways. The expectation of source for the doctrine of marriage is skewed by the assertion that it came from the same place as post leaders who had things wrong about homosexuality. 

There's also an irritating assumption that those who aren't convinced that SSM may be divinely sanctioned or something like it haven't necessarily understood or empathized enough with LGBT folk. This also isn't accurate. In just the last few months I worked to help a few people better understand their sexuality and gender preferences. To reduce suicidality. And to find greater self-compassion and acceptance even in their ambiguous journey. I see the pain, I've interacted with it fairly regularly. I worked to mitigate the worst pitfalls for those in my office. But it hasn't brought me to the exact conclusions.

Lastly there's also an assumptions that we haven't prayed or questioned or sought out answers through study and pondering. I have. It has led me to a greater well of compassion and awe towards God and my fellow brothers and sisters. I prayed right before I started reading this article. I've prayed in the past. I've prayed more in the last few days about this. I don't have the exact answer and I'm not the prophet. But the direction these prayers and ponderings lead me just isn't in the direction this article is leading. I would love for it to do so. But something always feels missing and I can't put my finger on it. 

I dislike simplistic narratives. And this is oversimplified in several points to make its assertions stronger.

I'll keep reading of course. But it's not so far going super well. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 26, 2017 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

30 year prediction...where is Scott?

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I want to be as gentle as possible regarding this topic. The entire doctrine, policy and history of the Priesthood Ban was always something that lacked scriptural support. It was a policy that simply had to end, and thankfully in President Kimball, we had a leader who was willing to challenge this institutional doctrine and make a change. Polygamy, and Monogamous relationship in marriage both have scriptural doctrines that can be supported or rejected depending on what parts of all canonized scripture that we have. But, The Church is not governed by popular vote, and if this is a Church that is truly lead by Prophets, under the direction of Jesus Christ, it must remain so. There simply is nothing to which Prophets ancient and modern Prophets, can point to that such practices having been or ever, or will be permitted to sanction such unions, and making them equal in the eyes of the doctrine and blessings. This is just one of many social issues, as were others where people will have to choose to stay or to go. Many of us have family who are touched by this issue, and they are bound to these family member by mutual love, and all wish for their family members to be loved, and saved. It tugs at the heartstrings, just as having family members who are in common-law marriages, just living together, and one down the list. We love them, we care for them and their salvation, but it is not "we" who grant such salvation. 

Our Father in Heaven, gave his Son, Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of all mankind. This is why a loving Father, just as a loving parent would do, to provide different rewards, and do the best he can for each individual. Except for those who give themselves totally over to Satan and become the sons of perdition, then they are beyond "His Grace", the rest receive according to his Grace, his loving Grace. 

The changing of the church's position on gay marriage is often compared to the Priesthood Ban.  But oddly enough, something USU87 said made me realize that the church has made much more drastic changes to doctrine than the Priesthood Ban.

The covenant of circumcision was given to the Jews by God as a sign of their acceptance and commitment to being followers of Him.  It was a covenant every bit as important to the Jews as any temple covenant or even the sacrament covenant.  Yet circumstances in the church changed.  It was necessary to open up the church to a broader audience.  Peter received a revelation from God on what the church was to do to allow the church to be open to more people.  He in one swift move eliminated a practice that did have sound scriptural doctrine and had  been around for over 3000 years.  Can you imagine the reaction that those Jews had to recending that ancient covenant?  I don't think that anyone could possibly make the argument that prohibiting gay marriage has more scriptural support than eliminating circumcision from church doctrine.

The article points out a statement by Joseph Smith about what is doctrine

Quote

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

I would add one more thing that seems fundamental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the last 2000 years.  That it is for all of mankind.  All are welcome to participate in the Plan of Happiness.  Some say that gays are more than welcome to participate and be part of that Plan of Happiness.  But how can you possibly participate in that plan and not be allowed to marry.  It makes reason stare.   Perhaps the strongest reason why the church policy will have to change is for the same reasons why circumcision changed in the early church and why the Priesthood Ban changed in our lifetimes.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone.  All are called and invited to be a part of the Plan of Happiness. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

Nobody wants to hate or harm any one over LGBT issues.  Having said that, I think it is children who suffer the most.  

My daughter is so politically correct that she lets my grandson where nail polish and  eye shadow.  He asked about it, because his mom wears them.  He wore his hair long, partly because he wanted to and it seemed like my daughter liked him being different or being called a girl.  Her grandfather asked why he didn`t get his hair cut because he looked like a girl.  That went over really well and she just waited all that much longer.  That is a small thing compared to wearing nail polish or eye shadow.  Is my grandson going to be confused by this?  Why is my daughter encouraging it?  She doesn't have a thing to do with the Church right now.  She is all things LGBT, feminist rights, etc. ad nauseam.  Are we not supposed to teach gender identity any more?  Because it seems like my daughter isn't.  In other words, are we sending so many mixed messages that young people wonder whether they are another gender or have SSA?  So treating people with tolerance and respect on LGBT issues, yes.  Letting children wander into the LGBT issues at the whim and wisp of the wind, no.  I won`t respond to any questions or comments about those who are born with LGBT tendencies.  Different issue for me.  

I am not saying that the Church could never change, but I think I would have to be convinced that God wants it that way (ok our Heavenly Parents).  I also think we still have a duty to teach our children their gender identity and about marriage norms, including avoiding fornication and adultery. 

You really think wearing make up, putting on finger nail polish or long hair will determine your gender identity?  

I grew up in the 60's and I remember going on a scout camp out.  We were riding in the back of a pickup.  (Yeah I know, we did things like that back then.  Don't judge.)  There were a couple of guys in my ward that had hair down to their waist.  The thought up a very fun game to keep us entertained on the way home.  They took off their shirts and then put their arms up to cover their chests.  Then they would stand up and flash the other motorists.  Those that caught a glimpse would speed up to take a closer look or honk their horns to encourage the little show, clearly convinced that they had just seen two women flashing them their breasts.

One of those guys ended up being the bishop of that same ward.  The other one ended up being on the highway patrol in northern Utah.  Neither 0ne turned out to identify as young girls with small breasts.  You might want to  do a little more research on this issue if it is something that is really worrying you.  

[readstoomuch]

Said hair was rather small issue.  I had hair down to my shoulders in some of my pictures in junior high.  

Are  you saying wearing eye shadow and nail polish has no messages about gender identity?  CB, I know you are probably a great guy.  I just often find myself at odds with you.  I don't know what's going to happen to the boy, but I sure wish he didn't show up at school looking like that.  

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

Said hair was rather small issue.  I had hair down to my shoulders in some of my pictures in junior high.  

Are  you saying wearing eye shadow and nail polish has no messages about gender identity?  CB, I know you are probably a great guy.  I just often find myself at odds with you.  I don't know what's going to happen to the boy, but I sure wish he didn't show up at school looking like that.  

Hair was rather a small issue?  Those same two guys were not allowed to pass the sacrament or later bless it because of their long hair.

I would not be a fan of having any young child wear make-up.  My daughters weren't allowed to wear makeup until they were 14.  I think it really might become a bullying issue for a young boy to wear make up to school.  BUT, I don't think any of that has to do with anything that makes a person transgender.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

All are called and invited to be a part of the Plan of Happiness

Narrow way? Strait gate? Few are chosen? Parable of the sower? Tree of life vision? Three Degrees of Glory?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If that is the price to pay than that is the price to pay.  If the Church has to kick out 95% of the members to save the 5% that is better in the end than accepting a practice that would lead to the damnation of the 100%.

Well, I'd be very surprised if the Church would "kick out" the youth of the church.  They are the future (members, leaders, parents, etc.).  It's much more likely that the leaders will become more accepting of SSM and do away with the policy regarding baptizing the children involved in those homes.  I'd love it if they were allowed to participate in a ward, hold callings and so on (active gay members and couples in a SSM, and their children).  I know you'll say that their children can already "participate", but not in everything other youth who are members can participate in.

I think the next 5-10 years will be interesting as far as any changes that are made regarding this issue.

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Narrow way? Strait gate? Few are chosen? Parable of the sower? Tree of life vision? Three Degrees of Glory?

"Called and invited to be a part of", so yes.  That includes "all".  

I think many will be surprised at who makes it through that narrow gate and who doesn't.

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Called and invited to be a part of", so yes.  That includes "all".  

I think many will be surprised at who makes it through that narrow gate and who doesn't.

Of course all are invited. The Tree of Life vision describes our situation.What do you think the strait gate and narrow way are?

[Guest]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

The changing of the church's position on gay marriage is often compared to the Priesthood Ban.  But oddly enough, something USU87 said made me realize that the church has made much more drastic changes to doctrine than the Priesthood Ban.

The covenant of circumcision was given to the Jews by God as a sign of their acceptance and commitment to being followers of Him.  It was a covenant every bit as important to the Jews as any temple covenant or even the sacrament covenant.  Yet circumstances in the church changed.  It was necessary to open up the church to a broader audience.  Peter received a revelation from God on what the church was to do to allow the church to be open to more people.  He in one swift move eliminated a practice that did have sound scriptural doctrine and had  been around for over 3000 years.  Can you imagine the reaction that those Jews had to recending that ancient covenant?  I don't think that anyone could possibly make the argument that prohibiting gay marriage has more scriptural support than eliminating circumcision from church doctrine.

The article points out a statement by Joseph Smith about what is doctrine

I would add one more thing that seems fundamental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the last 2000 years.  That it is for all of mankind.  All are welcome to participate in the Plan of Happiness.  Some say that gays are more than welcome to participate and be part of that Plan of Happiness.  But how can you possibly participate in that plan and not be allowed to marry.  It makes reason stare.   Perhaps the strongest reason why the church policy will have to change is for the same reasons why circumcision changed in the early church and why the Priesthood Ban changed in our lifetimes.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone.  All are called and invited to be a part of the Plan of Happiness. 

Part of the "Plan of Happiness" is fulfill in all. Progressing as a spirit child of God, coming to earth and obtaining a body and immortality through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Church does not only minister unto those who may or may not receive Exaltation, but to those who will receive lesser rewards, according to their faith. The "Heavenly Model" if you will is "man and wife" together, with Eterbal Increase", in having their children made whole for all Eternity, and to have even more. There are some married men and women who cannot have children due to health problems, but in the eternities having all been made whole they can and will have eternal increase. In this life or in any other, Gay men or women cannot have children unless they step out of their sexual orientation, or employ the means of science. Even then only the DNA of one will continue, only one will have increase. But if Gay individuals remain in such relationships, of course noting that many have married had children and then "came out", strictly Gay couples cannot reproduce. Forget "Spiritual Law", God's Law, for a moment, Nature and Natural Law, has already passed judgement upon the issue. I take no joy in pointing this out, it is the reality of the situation. 

God, creator of all things, his first act at the end of creation upon this earth, first established "In the beginning", the institution of marriage, spelling out it condition for all time, and then gave the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth". When there were no other men or women, his institution of marriage then states, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". It is not the LDS Church policy, nor any other Church policy, it is God's institution, model and commandment. As one other Gay poster here, who is a father, said that "gay men would see little attraction in the idea of children and eternal increase" (too paraphrase)  This one statement cut to the core or the issue, and reveled a brutal truth. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/25/2017 at 6:30 AM, churchistrue said:

I did a review of the article http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/bryce-cook-mormon-church-gay-marriage/

This is in your review....

Quote

As late as the 1970’s, the Church was counseling against these sex acts among married people. There was even a controversy for a while where leaders were asking members in temple recommend interviews whether they engaged in [certain] sex acts. That was a short lived experiment. It’s since been clarified that what a married couple does in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business. No sex acts between married couples are now considered sinful.  40 years later, this almost seems comical to young people who didn’t live through it.

Are you sure this is true? Do you think that there might be a higher law that exalted being live that many of us mortals cannot abide? I'm not sure scoffing at previous moral standards is a true measure of their validity.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Part of the "Plan of Happiness" is fulfill in all. Progressing as a spirit child of God, coming to earth and obtaining a body and immortality through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Church does not only minister unto those who may or may not receive Exaltation, but to those who will receive lesser rewards, according to their faith. The "Heavenly Model" if you will is "man and wife" together, with Eterbal Increase", in having their children made whole for all Eternity, and to have even more. There are some married men and women who cannot have children due to health problems, but in the eternities having all been made whole they can and will have eternal increase. In this life or in any other, Gay men or women cannot have children unless they step out of their sexual orientation, or employ the means of science. Even then only the DNA of one will continue, only one will have increase. But if Gay individuals remain in such relationships, of course noting that many have married had children and then "came out", strictly Gay couples cannot reproduce. Forget "Spiritual Law", God's Law, for a moment, Nature and Natural Law, has already passed judgement upon the issue. I take no joy in pointing this out, it is the reality of the situation. 

God, creator of all things, his first act at the end of creation upon this earth, first established "In the beginning", the institution of marriage, spelling out it condition for all time, and then gave the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth". When there were no other men or women, his institution of marriage then states, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". It is not the LDS Church policy, nor any other Church policy, it is God's institution, model and commandment. As one other Gay poster here, who is a father, said that "gay men would see little attraction in the idea of children and eternal increase" (too paraphrase)  This one statement cut to the core or the issue, and reveled a brutal truth. 

I guess if I believed that the whole purpose of marriage is to reproduce then I could buy into your point of view.  But marriage is also to give one a helpmate.  Part of the Plan of Happiness includes having that helpmate.  If you take that away from most marriages, what is left is quite empty.