Treat gay people as a race.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Getting into an argument about whether same sex marriage is adultery is beyond silly. 

I agree.  I'd have left it alone, but others are questioning the definition of it and stating that it's technically fornication.

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, do you believe that only those who are sealed in a temple marriage can commit adultery?  (That it's technically fornication if someone is unfaithful in a civil marriage...)

Using your line of reasoning, that's what you're saying.  Because anyone entering into a SSM is just as legally and lawfully wed as any heterosexual couple who is married outside of the temple.  Or do you also not consider them (heterosexual couple) to be married as well?

A homosexual couple is not “lawfully wed” under God’s laws. Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn’t make it so. 

Heterosexual marriage is acceptable under God’s laws; homosexual marriage is not. 

SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the God of the universe. Neither does any other earthly group. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'd have left it alone, but others are questioning the definition of it and stating that it's technically fornication.

This makes no sense. Klindley is right: Your argument is beyond silly. 

[MormonMason]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What are you quoting?  Did he actually state that in the words you're attributing to him?  A marriage between male and female can be ordained of God.  But that doesn't mean that we know how Christ felt regarding SSM.  He never spoke of it and if he had, he may have stated something similar regarding it.  We simply do not know.

Here is what Jesus taught about marriage.

Quote

 

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Matthew 19:4–6)

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Mark 10:5–9)

 

I'm using the word "ordained" in the sense of "decree, give orders for, to order or command".  Now, in both the Greek of the Gospels and the Aramaic (or even like Hebrew) that Jesus would have used when speaking these referred to biological men and their female wives or spouses.  Specific words referring to male and female are used.  Also, if God is the one who specified the joining of male and female, marriage between male and female is ordained by him.  There is no need for Jesus to have addressed a non-existent SSM in his time, but his words reiterate those of Moses, he never cancelled them or revoked them, and he never stated anything else that would allow for an alternate interpretation.  His apostles then continued along the same lines, and the modern apostles have done the same.  The modern day revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants also are specific to male and female.  In other words, we can and do know.

Edited April 25, 2018 by MormonMason

[kllindley]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'd have left it alone, but others are questioning the definition of it and stating that it's technically fornication.

I think that we are questioning the illogical assumption that Christian sexual morality has suddenly been overwritten by the Supreme Court. Now that two men or two women can legally be married, they aren't breaking the Law of Chastity. Changing definitions doesn't change the Law. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 Your argument is beyond silly. 

Well, I've stated that I knew the definition of adultery since I first posted about it on this thread (and quoted the definition twice).  You are the one who started the "silly" argument about the word, not I. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think that we are questioning the illogical assumption that Christian sexual morality has suddenly been overwritten by the Supreme Court. Now that two men or two women can legally be married, they aren't breaking the Law of Chastity. Changing definitions doesn't change the Law. 

The definition of adultery has not changed.

I agree that the definition of the word "marriage" has been extended to include more than just a union between a man and a woman.

[changed]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I couldn't say.  

What do you think all the heterosexual members who desperately want to get married (such as Sheri Dew) but aren't able to and remain single for their whole lives are supposed to learn?  There has been a heterosexual member on this board who has talked about being in a great and loving relationship with a nonmember but ultimately had to break off that relationship and choose to be single because the nonmember did not ever want to get married but wanted to have a physical relationship.  What were they supposed to learn?

 

 

Everyone has things we were not educated on in this life - we all have incomplete knowledge in some areas, and more complete understanding in other areas.  I think the best approach is to honor everyone's personal decision, to not tell anyone what to do or not to do - that is between them and G-d, only they can answer what their life experiences have taught them.  

 

[kllindley]

So one of the key elements of the definition was changed. 

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The definition of adultery has not changed.

I agree that the definition of the word "marriage" has been extended to include more than just a union between a man and a woman.

The definition of adultery may not have changed, but the meaning did. 😉

Edited April 25, 2018 by kllindley

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So one of the key elements of the definition was changed. 

The definition of adultery may not have changed, but the meaning did. 😉

What do you mean "key elements"?  (Sincere question....)

As far as I know the meaning is still the same and so is the definition:

Quote

 

Adultery:

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse

 

What is in that definition that had changed because SSM is now legal?   They are married persons and each has a spouse ("his or her spouse").  I see no change whatsoever just because marriage now includes two males or two females who are legally married and who are spouses to each other.

(And I'm really starting to agree with you....this is just plain silly.  Anyone involved in a civil marriage can commit adultery.)

Edited April 25, 2018 by ALarson

[changed]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

This is not an honest representation of what is taught. Are you saying you wouldn't want my family to be formed? Are you going to tell my wife or my children that they don't deserve their husband and father? 

I'm not sure of your background, are you a gay man who decided to marry a female?  It was a rhetorical question, as I knew some would answer they would not marry someone who was gay (see Smac97's reply)  I believe family is probably the most important part of life, and that we should support everyone in however they are able to form their family.  

[changed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Certainly not. 

Thanks,

-Smac

↑ the above was in response to "- would you want to marry someone who was gay? "

Many LDS advise against LGBT community getting married, which is a very sad thing.

Edited April 25, 2018 by changed

[kllindley]

I didn't say the definition of adultery had changed. I agreed that it hasn't.

But the meaning has. "Married person" is there phrase in the definition you quoted. If the definition of marriage has expanded to include more pairings, then by logical extension, the number of acts that can count as adultery has also expanded. 

I don't think this has anything to do with moral right and wrong.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

↑ the above was in response to "- would you want to marry someone who was gay? "

 

Well, he could very easily have been saying he wouldn't want to marry a man, since gay generally denotes male and lesbian female. 

You also didn't specify whether you meant gay the orientation, gay the identity, or gay the behaviors. 

But then I guess you said it was a rhetorical question. So that means you didn't expect an actual answer. It was just a tool to further monopolize the conversation and marginalize anyone who dares to disagree with you. 

[LittleNipper]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

↑ the above was in response to "- would you want to marry someone who was gay? "

 

What do you mean by"GAY". I believe having sex with an individual of the same sex is what constitutes  "GAY".  A hairdresser isn't gay. An actor isn't gay. A dancer isn't gay. An entertainer isn't gay. Having lots of friends of either sex isn't gay. Being a priest isn't gay... What is your opinion?

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, changed said:

I'm not sure of your background, are you a gay man who decided to marry a female?  It was a rhetorical question, as I knew some would answer they would not marry someone who was gay (see Smac97's reply)  I believe family is probably the most important part of life, and that we should support everyone in however they are able to form their family.  

But you stand by the inference that I shouldn't have married my wife? That our Union isn't authentic? 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, changed said:

 I think the best approach is to honor everyone's personal decision, to not tell anyone what to do or not to do....

 

But what if their personal decision involves telling people what to do?  Have you not made that decision here in this post, after all?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, changed said:

This is not about conformity for everyone - there are those who were born that way.

I'm not speaking about that sort of conformity.  I think many people have let themselves be bullied or shamed to goaded into conforming to a specific point of view about things like same-sex marriage.  Conformity is the order of the day.  If you do, you're an "ally."  If you don't, you're a bigot and homophobe.  

2 hours ago, changed said:

This is not about chastity

Yes, it is.  "Chastity" means "refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous."

In an LDS context, the Law of Chastity allows for sexual behavior between a husband and wife.  That's all.  All other forms of sexual conduct are prohibited.

2 hours ago, changed said:

- I agree with chastity,

But not the LDS teachings about it.

2 hours ago, changed said:

I do not agree with denying someone the ability to marry and have a committed relationship with someone they love.  

So you must be okay with group marriages.  And polygamy.  And incestuous marriages.  

Marriage has, until very recently, been defined as the association based on the attributes of those people, including A) gender (a man and a woman), B) number (two people), C) age (this one varies by jurisdiction a bit), D) mental capacity, E) consent (no coerced marriages), F) consanguinity and G) species (no human / non-human marriages). Since the Supreme Court has decided that the constitution mandates tossing out one attribute as a defining element of marriage (gender), then it would seem all of the others can be constitutionally tossed out as well.  In other words, same-sex marriage was a radical re-definition of one of the bedrocks of society.

I can understand and respect your generalized perspective about the parameters of marriage.  It would be nice if you could find a way to reciprocate those sentiments for people whose principled views differ from your own.

2 hours ago, changed said:

I do not seek a testimony in a church, I seek a testimony in G-d. 

I can understand your perspective.  I hope you can likewise understand ours.  We believe that Christ's church is important.  It is analogized in the New Testament to being akin to a bride, with Christ as the Bridegroom.  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."  (Eph. 5:25)

In the LDS paradigm, the Church, as a community, is very important.  To be sure, it is not a substitute for each of us having a personal relationship with God, but it is clearly a necessary component of it.  The Church houses the Lord's priesthood, and administers His saving ordinances, and is led by His servants.  

2 hours ago, changed said:

That there are so many different denominations indicates that G-d does not want all of us in the same church. 

Or it could be that many different denominations were the result of a loss of the leadership and priesthood authority when Peter and the other apostles were all scattered and killed.  This loss led to confusion and disagreement, and hence factionalization and division.  Hence the need for a restoration.

2 hours ago, changed said:

It is good to gather together, it is not good to become a puppet to any earthly organization.

I dont' believe the LDS Church is merely an "earthly organization."  And we certainly are not supposed to be "puppets" to it.

2 hours ago, changed said:

In the end, there is no borrowed light, only your own personal testimony - we all have to stand on our own two feet, and think for ourselves.

I agree.  "And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves."  (Moses 6:56).

However, you seem to be advocating a sort of anarchistic, anything-goes, do-whatever-you-want, if-it-feels-good-do-it approach.  With respect, I have never found that to be a viable or enduring approach to discipleship.  I think there is necessarily an external and higher authority to which we must submit, as otherwise there is no "right" or "wrong," and each person becomes a law unto himself.

So yes, we certainly need to "think for ourselves," but we don't get to make the rules as we go along, or to cherry pick only those which are convenient and comfortable to us.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."  I think somethign similar must be said of discipleship.  Faith in Jesus Christ must be based on something more objective and external than each individual's personally-crafted opinions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But you stand by the inference that I shouldn't have married my wife? That our Union isn't authentic? 

It seems to me that’s what many here are doing related to what they’d say to someone who is a lesbian.  You don’t believe her union with her wife is authentic, correct?  (Or have I misunderstood?)

[LittleNipper]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I think your comparison is going a bit too far..

Well, didn't it take 6000 years for there to be "gay" marriage? Perhaps the others will arrive in due time? GOD sees sin and doesn't change HIS view of sin; however, now HE views the sins of the saved through JESUS CHRIST; however, first the sinner must come to a point of realization that he is indeed a sinner and in need of Christ. When excuses are presented and exceptions are allowed for select sin ---- I feel that we are not doing the sinner any favors. In fact, we may just as well place the eternal rope around his neck because he begins to believe a lie that what he is about is not sin but a thing of beauty --- LOVE and not LUST. LOVE doesn't require sex of any sort. And GOD designed marriage to illustrate HIS relationship with CHRIST and CHRIST's relationship to HIS CHURCH. GOD designed sex as the means to procreate and not as exercise or entertainment ----- even though HE made it enjoyable to one degree or another. Should the "Christian" strive and live to serve GOD or live to fulfill personal sexual desires? Where ultimately should the emphasis lie?

Edited April 25, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Calm]

3 hours ago, changed said:

That there are so many different denominations indicates that G-d does not want all of us in the same church.

While I don't disagree with the rest of your paragraph this sentence was in (we should not be puppets, etc.), this is poor support for it, imo.  One could use this reasoning to justify war since there are so many such events in our history.

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It seems to me that’s what many here are doing related to what they’d say to someone who is a lesbian.  You don’t believe her union with her wife is authentic, correct?  (Or have I misunderstood?)

You have misunderstood. Can you quote any comment of mine that led you to understand I believe that? 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Race is not a sin and never has been viewed as a sin within Judaism or Christianity or Islam.  This is comparable to discussing the benefit if discussing sheep we will call wolves sheep because they are fluffy and kind when they aren't eating you. Also, (and let's not get into an argument of choice or forced to be), but the gay lifestyle is a choice.  The lifestyle is not monogamous; it is not about procreation; it is completely based on instant gratification; it is not about fulfilling God's purpose.  

We don't need to argue the merits or lack of merit of the gay lifestyle. However, your premise is that God was wrong, ancient Israel was wrong, all of world history was wrong and that only the last 30 years has been right.....strains credulity.  Let's flip it around, what happens in 30 or 40 years when people wake up and realize the personal and societal problems with the gay lifestyle?

Sounds you're weighed down with negative stereotypes about gay people. If you were trying to show that it's totally different from racism, I think your argument backfired.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

You have misunderstood. Can you quote any comment of mine that led you to understand I believe that? 

Oh good (misunderstood).  Glad you don’t feel that way!

I have read some posts here from those who at least appear to believe that couples in a ssm are not really in an authentic (real or valid) marriage.   

Edited April 25, 2018 by JulieM

[kllindley]

Just now, JulieM said:

Oh good (misunderstood).  Glad you don’t feel that way!

I have read some posts here from those who at least appear to believe that couple in a ssm are not really in an authentic (real or valid) marriage.   

I believe it a SSM is every bit as valid as any other earthly marriage.

Do you believe that a same-sex marriage will be eternal?