Presbyterian Church in Ireland policy on SSM almost like ours.

[carbon dioxide]

Not that I really want to start another thread on this beaten down topic of SSM but I found this article that is interesting in relation to the LDS church policy

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44412860

"The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has adopted a new policy that means anyone in a same-sex relationship cannot be a full member of the Church.

It also means their children cannot be baptised.

The move comes after the Church cut ceremonial ties with the Church of Scotland due to its more liberal attitude to same-sex relationships."

 

[HappyJackWagon]

I wonder if our policy influenced theirs in any way. If it did, it makes me even more sad.

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder if our policy influenced theirs in any way. If it did, it makes me even more sad.

Yeah...I don't think a God of any church can say you can only go..part way on anything.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Yeah...I don't think a God of any church can say you can only go..part way on anything.

This isn't the first time that the Presbyterian Church has been split right down the middle.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not that I really want to start another thread on this beaten down topic of SSM but I found this article that is interesting in relation to the LDS church policy

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44412860

"The Presbyterian Church in Ireland has adopted a new policy that means anyone in a same-sex relationship cannot be a full member of the Church.

It also means their children cannot be baptised.

The move comes after the Church cut ceremonial ties with the Church of Scotland due to its more liberal attitude to same-sex relationships."

 

What wrong with same-snake marriage?

[LittleNipper]

A homosexual couple cannot have children.

 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

A homosexual couple cannot have children.

 

When I was six years old, my parents adopted two boys.  To this day, they still call them their "children" and I call them my "brothers."  Is it your belief that we are in error?  If so, what should we call them?

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

When I was six years old, my parents adopted two boys.  To this day, they still call them their "children" and I call them my "brothers."  Is it your belief that we are in error?  If so, what should we call them?

I think the point is that a heterosexual couple is capable of producing offspring whereas a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring. Simply because a gay couple can adopt children does not make them parents. Humans can imitate the roles of other things, but that does not make them the same thing.

Conflating a heterosexual couple with a homosexual couple is good for pushing an agenda, but it has no logic in its foundation. It is simply a leap over history and biology to a conclusion that satiates a social agenda of today.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the point is that a heterosexual couple is capable of producing offspring whereas a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring. Simply because a gay couple can adopt children does not make them parents. Humans can imitate the roles of other things, but that does not make them the same thing.

Conflating a heterosexual couple with a homosexual couple is good for pushing an agenda, but it has no logic in its foundation. It is simply a leap over history and biology to a conclusion that satiates a social agenda of today.

Are you suggesting that even though someone adopts a child it doesn't make them a parent? Are you sure you want to go there? Adoptive parents are not real parents? Or is it just gay adoptive parents aren't real parents? I'm kind of at a loss for words about how to respond to this.

This position isn't unique to you of course. We've been taught in conference about "counterfeit" families, but this kind of hostile attitude towards gays is exactly why people feel the church and its members are bigoted.

Edited July 7, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

When I was six years old, my parents adopted two boys.  To this day, they still call them their "children" and I call them my "brothers."  Is it your belief that we are in error?  If so, what should we call them?

 

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that even though someone adopts a child it doesn't make them a parent? Are you sure you want to go there? Adoptive parents are not real parents? Or is it just gay adoptive parents aren't real parents? I'm kind of at a loss for words about how to respond to this.

This position isn't unique to you of course. We've been taught in conference about "counterfeit" families, but this kind of hostile attitude towards gays is exactly why people feel the church and its members are bigoted.

The point is that heterosexual couples somewhere (or a sperm or egg donor somewhere) had to provide the means or have the children in order to adopt. Homosexual couples cannot have children as a couple ---- they have to have at least gametes provided by the opposite gender, if not the whole child from a couple. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

The point is that heterosexual couples somewhere (or a sperm or egg donor somewhere) had to provide the means or have the children in order to adopt. Homosexual couples cannot have children as a couple ---- they have to have at least gametes provided by the opposite gender, if not the whole child from a couple. 

So?

The statement was that SS couples cannot "have" children. There are many SS couples who have children. If "have" is meant to mean "independently produce children through intercourse" then that would be more accurate.

Either way, that doesn't change the coldness and incorrectness of Storm Rider's statement that gays are not real parents. Do you wish to defend that statement? I hope everyone can agree that there is much more to being a parent than the biological process of reproduction and that even adoptive parents, gay or straight, are truly parents and not simply pretending to be. I can't get over how offensive it is to state that gays and adoptive parents are not truly parents. It's mind boggling. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Either way, that doesn't change the coldness and incorrectness of Storm Rider's statement that gays are not real parents. Do you wish to defend that statement?

In the eyes of the Church (with which I agree), there is a definite "good, better, best" continuum for ideal families for raising children. Doctrinally (and again, I agree with this), the PotF family is good, better, and best. Good gay parents are much better than bad straight parents, but God wants better than that for his children. The exercise of agency leads to many not having access to the ideal. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

In the eyes of the Church (with which I agree), there is a definite "good, better, best" continuum for ideal families for raising children. Doctrinally (and again, I agree with this), the PotF family is good, better, and best. Good gay parents are much better than bad straight parents, but God wants better than that for his children. The exercise of agency leads to many not having access to the ideal. 

OK, fine. But that's not what he said.

I wonder if there are any other family structures that don't qualify as "best" that would merit church disdain like gay parents. Are non-married parents "best" in the church's eyes? Probably not. Would anyone suggest they aren't real parents? I hope not. Are adoptive parents "best"? Yeah, I think they are pretty great and don't deserve to be disparaged in any way as simply trying to imitate real parents.

Again, it's this kind of attitude that illustrates why many view the church's position as bigoted. It's not about good, better, best. It seems to be more about refusal to accept gays as real people and real parents.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

In the eyes of the Church (with which I agree), there is a definite "good, better, best" continuum for ideal families for raising children. Doctrinally (and again, I agree with this), the PotF family is good, better, and best. Good gay parents are much better than bad straight parents, but God wants better than that for his children. The exercise of agency leads to many not having access to the ideal. 

I agree that there is a definition of "good, better and best" parents.  But it has NOTHING to do with the gender of the parents or whether they have adopted their children or not.  So sad that the church and you think THAT should be used as the criteria of what makes a good parent.  And for me, just further reinforcement that the Mormon Church is not just against gay couples, but against their children as well.  

Edited July 7, 2018 by california boy

[rongo]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder if there are any other family structures that don't qualify as "best" that would merit church disdain like gay parents. Are non-married parents "best" in the church's eyes? Probably not.

Heck no. Unfortunately, there are way too many of these. By and large, children whose parents aren't married tend to have academic and behavioral issues at school, from my anecdotal experience. To say nothing about the long-term eternal impact on them. 

Would anyone suggest they aren't real parents? I hope not.

No, and I would not call gay parents "not real parents," either. I don't think either situation is ideal for raising kids. Many people have to make the best of the situation they are in, which means less-than-ideal situations. 

 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that even though someone adopts a child it doesn't make them a parent? Are you sure you want to go there? Adoptive parents are not real parents? Or is it just gay adoptive parents aren't real parents? I'm kind of at a loss for words about how to respond to this.

This position isn't unique to you of course. We've been taught in conference about "counterfeit" families, but this kind of hostile attitude towards gays is exactly why people feel the church and its members are bigoted.

I agree on this.  I have one biological kid and one adopted kid.  I am the legal parent to both of them.  I treat them exactly the same and they will inherit exactly the same from me.   I rarely even think of my adopted son as adopted. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So?

The statement was that SS couples cannot "have" children. There are many SS couples who have children. If "have" is meant to mean "independently produce children through intercourse" then that would be more accurate.

Either way, that doesn't change the coldness and incorrectness of Storm Rider's statement that gays are not real parents. Do you wish to defend that statement? I hope everyone can agree that there is much more to being a parent than the biological process of reproduction and that even adoptive parents, gay or straight, are truly parents and not simply pretending to be. I can't get over how offensive it is to state that gays and adoptive parents are not truly parents. It's mind boggling. 

I suppose common sense is hostile to stupidity; there are a lot of things that are hostile, but hostility does not invalidate the concept.

Within a spiritual context, God created the world and placed a man, with his helpmeet - a woman -  with the initial command to go; be fruitful and multiply. This great command is completely beyond the realm of possibility for any gay couple.  The path of two individuals who choose to imitate God's command is death.  There is no life in their relationship because the foundation itself is death. Is God hostile to incorrect choices?  Yes, apparently so in the same way that he is hostile to all sin.  There is no super prize for SSA - it is just sin. 

God, biology, common sense all direct towards proper choices.  The mere fact that two individuals sense an attraction to one another does not make it right or correct; nor does it automatically make it warm and loving. If a human's choice is the standard for acceptable sexual behavior then the world is doomed. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild and without restraint. Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects, through urinating and defecating on each other (check out photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human being tortured; by listening to a disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies—parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced—but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.

You, and others, somehow think that simply because two humans of the same sex then everything is okay. God's teachings, the fundamental reason for being on this earth, and all of biological science should be ignored because, well because they "love" each other.  I get rather tired of this silly, rainbow (no pun intended) colored reason gets traipsed out when the topic comes up. All the world is supposed to stop because two individuals of the same sex love each other. It is not that they lust, it is not that they lust with hundreds, if not thousands, of others who choose similarly, but that it is equal to what God has commanded. 

Then wrapping it up with every topic - adoptive parents in this case - everyone is just supposed to look the other way. Can individuals parent a child? Yes.  No, a homosexual couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple. Can a gay individual parent a child? Yes. The point is that in the same way that I am not a farmer just because I can go out into a field and throw seeds about so a gay individual is not a parent just because they can parent a child that is not their own. There are consequences to the choices we make in this life. For those individuals that choose a gay lifestyle, this is one of the consequences. A mother and a father are not replaceable with two females or two males. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I suppose common sense is hostile to stupidity; there are a lot of things that are hostile, but hostility does not invalidate the concept.

Within a spiritual context, God created the world and placed a man, with his helpmeet - a woman -  with the initial command to go; be fruitful and multiply. This great command is completely beyond the realm of possibility for any gay couple.  The path of two individuals who choose to imitate God's command is death.  There is no life in their relationship because the foundation itself is death. Is God hostile to incorrect choices?  Yes, apparently so in the same way that he is hostile to all sin.  There is no super prize for SSA - it is just sin. 

God, biology, common sense all direct towards proper choices.  The mere fact that two individuals sense an attraction to one another does not make it right or correct; nor does it automatically make it warm and loving. If a human's choice is the standard for acceptable sexual behavior then the world is doomed. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild and without restraint. Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects, through urinating and defecating on each other (check out photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human being tortured; by listening to a disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies—parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced—but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.

You, and others, somehow think that simply because two humans of the same sex then everything is okay. God's teachings, the fundamental reason for being on this earth, and all of biological science should be ignored because, well because they "love" each other.  I get rather tired of this silly, rainbow (no pun intended) colored reason gets traipsed out when the topic comes up. All the world is supposed to stop because two individuals of the same sex love each other. It is not that they lust, it is not that they lust with hundreds, if not thousands, of others who choose similarly, but that it is equal to what God has commanded. 

Then wrapping it up with every topic - adoptive parents in this case - everyone is just supposed to look the other way. Can individuals parent a child? Yes.  No, a homosexual couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple. Can a gay individual parent a child? Yes. The point is that in the same way that I am not a farmer just because I can go out into a field and throw seeds about so a gay individual is not a parent just because they can parent a child that is not their own. There are consequences to the choices we make in this life. For those individuals that choose a gay lifestyle, this is one of the consequences. A mother and a father are not replaceable with two females or two males. 

WOW!!!

How could a mind become so twisted and loose so much humanity is beyond me.  There is not a single thing you wrote that could not also be written about heterosexual relationships.  Yet I would NEVER condemn all straight couples nor their marriages in any remote way that you have done here.

I hope you at some point find some charity and understanding for others that are not exactly like you are.  This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I hope you reconsider couching your scorn in His teachings.

[strappinglad]

As has been mentioned, compared to all the other garbage humans have gotten up to in the past 6-10 thousand years of recorded existence, SSM is just another notch on the post. On this forum we have examples of people who started families as heterosexual couples and then separated and joined with a SS person to continue. Their children are still their biological offspring and in most cased the children are being raised as best they can be in the circumstances. Society has a large percentage of single moms raising children basically on their own . Studies show this is not an optimum for children or society as a whole but , hey, let's not judge. It will take a generation or so before any conclusions can be reached regarding current societal change.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Within a spiritual context, God created the world and placed a man, with his helpmeet - a woman -  with the initial command to go; be fruitful and multiply. This great command is completely beyond the realm of possibility for any gay couple. 

Science may have something to say about that soon.  It might not be currently possible, but you might be surprised how big the realm of possibility is.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

 

The point is that heterosexual couples somewhere (or a sperm or egg donor somewhere) had to provide the means or have the children in order to adopt. Homosexual couples cannot have children as a couple ---- they have to have at least gametes provided by the opposite gender, if not the whole child from a couple. 

So when science makes it possible to alter one of the gametes to opposite sex or to clone, will same sex couples then be able to be called "parents" in your view since they would be the only ones supplying biological material?

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

As has been mentioned, compared to all the other garbage humans have gotten up to in the past 6-10 thousand years of recorded existence, SSM is just another notch on the post. On this forum we have examples of people who started families as heterosexual couples and then separated and joined with a SS person to continue. Their children are still their biological offspring and in most cased the children are being raised as best they can be in the circumstances. Society has a large percentage of single moms raising children basically on their own . Studies show this is not an optimum for children or society as a whole but , hey, let's not judge. It will take a generation or so before any conclusions can be reached regarding current societal change.

The covenants of God on earth are not structured around who can do a better job at keeping them (that is where grace comes in handy), but around exaltation and all that entails for the family of God.

Societal covenants on the other hand reflect the best that mankind can invent, and often the law of the jungle, “might-makes-right,” materialism, etc. prevail. Some things are consistent with God’s society and some are not (“I’ve lived long enough to have witnessed much of the metamorphosis of society’s morals. Where once the standards of the Church and the standards of society were mostly compatible, now there is a wide chasm between us, and it’s growing ever wider.” – President Monson, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/priesthood-power?lang=eng.)

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

So when science makes it possible to alter one of the gametes to opposite sex or to clone, will same sex couples then be able to be called "parents" in your view since they would be the only ones supplying biological material?

Adoption, fertility medicine and genetic technology have made great strides in opening up opportunities to generate and nurture life (in my opinion driven by economics and political will), and I hope will continue to do so. At the same time, some of the more creative social constructs fly in the face of divine covenants. 

More to your point, gametes of the opposite sex have or will create the people who create life from same-sex gametes, and depending on one's persuasion, evolving asexual reproduction gave rise to sexual reproduction... (chicken and egg sort of thing). While life is life no matter where it comes from, and it all came from God, He definitely has taken a position (extended the invitation) on how the living are to live it!

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Adoption, fertility medicine and genetic technology have made great strides in opening up opportunities to generate and nurture life (in my opinion driven by economics and political will), and I hope will continue to do so. At the same time, some of the more creative social constructs fly in the face of divine covenants. 

More to your point, gametes of the opposite sex have or will create the people who create life from same-sex gametes, and depending on one's persuasion, evolving asexual reproduction gave rise to sexual reproduction... (chicken and egg sort of thing). While life is life no matter where it comes from, and it all came from God, He definitely has taken a position (extended the invitation) on how the living are to live it!

I don't disagree.

I just find the insistence that biology is the qualifier for parenthood problematic and am addressing that argument alone.

Argue covenant, social science, etc. for family structure...no problem with that, imo.  Argue solely biology, big problem, imo, and one that will leave its proponents with nothing to support their stance when science removes that obstacle for biological parenthood for same sex couples.

Argumentatively (meaning in arguments/debates) equating biological parenthood with the raising of children is problematic, imo, as it can in extreme equate a rapist whose victim chooses to have the child with parents who plan to have children wisely and then raise them with loving care and are there for them throughout their children's lives until their own deaths.

If one wants to say currently same sex couples cannot both be biological parents of their children, say that, but that is only one aspect of parenthood which can have an impact on family dynamics (biological parents raising their children are generally less likely to be abusive, iirc, for example).  There are many others involved in primary caretaking of children and thus that one is not inherently disqualifying, imo.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I suppose common sense is hostile to stupidity; there are a lot of things that are hostile, but hostility does not invalidate the concept.

Within a spiritual context, God created the world and placed a man, with his helpmeet - a woman -  with the initial command to go; be fruitful and multiply. This great command is completely beyond the realm of possibility for any gay couple.  The path of two individuals who choose to imitate God's command is death.  There is no life in their relationship because the foundation itself is death. Is God hostile to incorrect choices?  Yes, apparently so in the same way that he is hostile to all sin.  There is no super prize for SSA - it is just sin. 

God, biology, common sense all direct towards proper choices.  The mere fact that two individuals sense an attraction to one another does not make it right or correct; nor does it automatically make it warm and loving. If a human's choice is the standard for acceptable sexual behavior then the world is doomed. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild and without restraint. Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects, through urinating and defecating on each other (check out photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human being tortured; by listening to a disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies—parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced—but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.

You, and others, somehow think that simply because two humans of the same sex then everything is okay. God's teachings, the fundamental reason for being on this earth, and all of biological science should be ignored because, well because they "love" each other.  I get rather tired of this silly, rainbow (no pun intended) colored reason gets traipsed out when the topic comes up. All the world is supposed to stop because two individuals of the same sex love each other. It is not that they lust, it is not that they lust with hundreds, if not thousands, of others who choose similarly, but that it is equal to what God has commanded. 

Then wrapping it up with every topic - adoptive parents in this case - everyone is just supposed to look the other way. Can individuals parent a child? Yes.  No, a homosexual couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple. Can a gay individual parent a child? Yes. The point is that in the same way that I am not a farmer just because I can go out into a field and throw seeds about so a gay individual is not a parent just because they can parent a child that is not their own. There are consequences to the choices we make in this life. For those individuals that choose a gay lifestyle, this is one of the consequences. A mother and a father are not replaceable with two females or two males. 

You are absolutely correct that the human sexual response, especially in males, is very shapeable. That response can be grossly distorted from God's intended purposes.

And I think that there is much more than that going on between most same sex couples. While it may be hard for you to accept or understand, I can testify that many gay and lesbian couple share genuine love. They are also fully capable of loving and parenting children---often much better than many biological parents. 

From my perspective, it's one thing to believe that same-sex relationships are not compatible with the nature of spirits and will not exist in the after life.  I think it's even okay to believe that same-sex relationships are not the best environment for raising children. 

But it's not only unhelpful, it's also wrong to vilify or mischaracterize those relationships. I'm one of the first to push back against those who criticize the Church or push for greater normalization of same-sex relationships. And at the same time, I have to acknowledge the truth that homosexuality is real and much more complicated than you are portraying. Let's disagree without being disagreeable.