GaySaint

Seminary: Perhaps 'celebrate' was the wrong word, or perhaps I would be 'celebrating' something else, like it has been said, 'celebrating' someone's desire to take steps to become closer to Christ, while 'commemorating' the actual baptism, for example. I guess I used 'celebrate' because I remember being young, and going to a Catholic event for a member of my family, and having a big party afterward. The party was a 'celebration' - so 'celebrate' was just the first word to pop into my head. But I do think someone can celebrate the intent, while disagreeing with an action - sure. Baptism in another faith would be just one example. Celebrating a same-sex couple's happiness while disagreeing with what they do in the bedroom could be another. I never meant to correlate celebration with acceptance. In fact, I think my point was to prove the opposite…

MOE: No offense taken =)

MOE: I think you just hit upon one of my personal justifications for the life I now live (choosing to allow myself to fall in love) - how can I claim I have done everything I can to find a mate if I completely and purposely exclude the group of people I'm capable of having a relationship with? Ok, that was a bit off topic, but just hit me as I read your post.

I do suppose there are already forms of marriage the church doesn't recognize that the law does (common law, comes to mind). To me, this seems like proof that if gay marriage were legal, the church would still not have to recognize it (as they have not been forced to recognize common law marriages). How does this play into the picture? Does anyone know the reasoning why common law marriages, specifically, aren’t recognized by the church? I ran into this once as a missionary, but wasn’t given any reason other than “the couple isn’t really married.”

JAG: Do you think it is possible for a gay couple to commit to live in a manner they believe the Lord has prescribed for them, or does it not matter in that regard (or is this a future possibility as you alluded to earlier)? I'm also curious as to why you don't think an LDS gay person could believe entirely that being gay is OK? You mentioned that most of your gay friends were once LDS so you wouldn't attend a marriage ceremony, more or less, because they "know better." I see this situation no different than I see someone who was once LDS changing their beliefs to align with another religious sect - and I'm sure anyone who has done that would claim they feel they were directed by God in that decision. I have found that for the surprising most part of LDS gay men I know, they have had the same feelings (I know you can only answer for yourself here in spite of the experience of others, but I would like some expanding of your earlier opinion, if possible).

Ok. So the consensus is that God recognizes civil marriages as a counterfeit form of eternal marriage because he can, and because they are done in the same form as eternal marriages (possibly because this helps fulfill the first commandment to have children), but doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages on the same principles (although he could, he chooses not to) because it doesn’t counterfeit the form of eternal marriage correctly. Strangely, that actually sort of makes sense to me… haha. I still see problems, but this is the closest I’ve come to understanding this particular doctrine.

Moe: My LDS side would want to say they are committed sin. My practical side would say they are justified. Then my LDS side says "Hopefully God will send an angel to marry them," hahaha. Hordak: (Sorry for this, Anatess) In regards to the effect of these things on the next life, I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off in the next life if I marry my partner than I would be if I don't, but I DO have reason to believe I will be BETTER off in the next life if I marry my partner than I would be if I don't - even if it is only the small benefit of knowing my heart was in the right place... But I think to just about everyone here, that is still not justification for my 'counterfit' marriage; not in the Lord's eyes, and not in theirs personally. I guess I just really don't like the "lesser law, greater law" concept when that isn't applied in any other place in the church. What would be the point other than to justify people who aren't members? And won't that justification be irrelevant if they later convert and are baptized? What do you see is the point to the lesser law?

Moe: Just to get my head around you post, is there any other imitation of ordinance (I can't think of a better way to say it...) in the church that the Lord has no obligation to recognize, but does? I still just don't get why a civil marriage would be an exception - a point upon which it is ok to live the lesser law. I realize there might not be an answer. Still, speculation begins the search for truth, right?

Traveler: Your post makes sense (and I think could have done without the analogy) - but at what time did God give up his authority on marriage and hand over the definition/authority to the state? Moe: But is it good enough for God (enough to remove the fornication aspect)?

Maya: If you want, leave out the homosexual components, and just discuss the authority of heterosexual marriages outside of the temple please. I really don't want to get into the "is homosexuality ok or not" argument, because that isn't the point of this topic. Obviously my question does relate to same-sex marriage, so I would like this discussed, but saying that homosexuality is a sin doesn't really address my concerns.

Anatess: Your question strikes at the very heart of the matter for me, and is the exact one I had.

JAG: What about those in gay-affirming churches that believe homosexuality is not wrong in the eyes of God, and who have that faith confirmed by their religious institution?

Beefche: That is what I don't understand. Civil marriage is a marriage performed without the proper authority (perhaps I could go as far to say that it is an imitation of a sealing). A baptism of another faith performed without the proper authority could be said to be an imitation of a baptism. The priest who would perform both has the same authority to speak for God in performing both (in that, in the LDS view, he wouldn't have any). What gives him authority to bind the marriage so that they are married in the eyes of the Lord, but not so that they are baptized in the eyes of the Lord?

While I might not agree with this statement entirely, this statement helps my understanding immensely!

Beefche: In your opinion, are baptisms performed outside of the church are binding for this life in the same manner as a marriage ceremony outside of the church is?

Wing: What makes a marriage outside of the temple a binding covenant? And can those same reasons be used to claim a baptism outside of the church is still a binding covenant (as I'm sure the people participating therein believe)? Both are required saving ordinances. It makes no sense to me that one one would require authority to be binding, but the other would not. I can't even wrap my MORMON brain around that, let alone my gay one

Seminary: Thank you very much. I think your response was very good. But now my question to you is this: Even if you disagree and believe they are not equal, just as you would place "something of value" making covenants outside of the priesthood authority, do you see the same value to gay people in regards to gay marriage? Not that you would change your defense of marriage, or your beliefs regarding marriage... If you at least SEE why this is important to us, then that is all I can really ask :). I started a new thread on this subject, so we should probably get back to the OP...

I did it... http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/33966-marriage-ordinance.html

Look! I'm starting a thread! I don't know why I'm so nervous On another thread we were talking about other ordinances (and comparing them to marriage) - specifically, baptisms. It was my thought that there aren't very many members of the church who wouldn't go to a friend or family's baptism of another faith and celebrate with them, and wondered why the same couldn't happen for marriage (either a friend or family member's same-sex marriage or a civil marriage outside of the temple). To me, the comparison seems valid – that just because you don’t believe something has the proper authority or is done correctly, doesn’t mean you can’t still celebrate and be happy for the person doing the best they can do in the circumstances they find themselves in. But some disagreed, even going as far to claim that they wouldn’t celebrate in a baptism of another faith – and therefore, they wouldn’t in a marriage outside of the temple either. If we talk specifically about ordinances and non-ordinances, I don’t understand this. Dravin spent a lot of time with me discussing the importance of marriage between one woman and one man outside of the temple, and why and how God endorses these marriages – but if the same principles don’t apply to other ordinances (IE, baptisms outside of the church), why is marriage a special case? I have my own opinions as to why and how God can recognize a marriage outside of the temple for this life only (in effect: God gave power to man to rule the earth and bind on earth but not in Heaven. The priesthood is required to bind in Heaven. But if this is true, there is no indication that the same power used to bind on earth could not be used between two men or two women, as there are no conditions upon which the power to bind on earth is predicated. This power is given to man to bind on earth simply because we have been given juristiction over the world. Of course, we could also discuss if using this power to bind on earth contrary to God's will is unrighteous dominion...). Whew! That was long. Thoughts?

I don't know if I could be considered a respectable member anyway haha.

Scary. I've never started my own thread before

Hemi and Seminary: Are you saying that someone who is baptized in another religion, and lives that religion all their life, will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, is rejecting celestial laws, and is not giving their sins over to Christ? While the church does teach that eventually everyone will recieve a witness of the truthfulness of the gospel as taught by the LDS church, it certainly doesn't exclude others from other religions. I remember a talk given by Elder Oaks (general conference, or Ensign? I'll look it up), where he said that Mormon's will not be the only ones in heaven (of course, I'm sure he meant that the good people of the earth would convert eventually). Still, I think it is very disrespectful to go to a family member's baptism into another faith and immediately afterward tell them they are going to have to do it again in the Mormon church if they want it to really count. Who would actually say that? And so it should be with marriage. We celebrate marriages all the time that take place outside of the temple (even if secretly wishing they were inside of the temple). If you have no respect for the institution of marriage outside of the temple, just as you have said you don't for baptisms outside of the church, then why does it matter if gay people are able to participate in a lower, dissaproved, unsaving, non-ordinance anyway? Dravin put a lot of effort discussing with me the reasons why a marriage outside of the temple is still important, but if that ordinance is compared to the ordinance of baptism as outlined here, you both just undid everything he tried to prove to me.

Seminary: Have you never celebrated with someone their baptism of another faith? Even though you may believe in your heart of hearts that that baptism wasn't done in the proper authority, and therefore will have to be redone eventually with the correct authority, don't you still rejoice that they are on the correct path, following as closely to God as they can with the knowledge they have been given? My entire family is Catholic (besides my immediate LDS family). I've been to plenty of Catholic baptisms. I saw no reason not to celebrate, be there in support, and love my family for the choices they were making to do the best they knew how to do, even if I disagreed in "how" or "where" the baptism took place. I think members of the church can support same-sex marriage in much the same way. I know many who have, and who do.

You should know that, again, every credible scientific study done in this area concludes that a child raised by same-sex parents can be just as well off as one raised by heterosexual parents. I'll provide links so you can review the studies yourself if you'd like. That said, I agree with you. I don't think a father should try to be a mother, or vice-versa. My children will have two fathers. I have quite the extensive data on this subject. But, again, from a religious context, I understand your concerns with this, and am not trying to change your mind. You should just know that discussing this issue, particularly with someone who doesn't believe in God, is going to require a bit more than "only a mother can be a mother."

From a secular or religious standpoint? If secular, I'd be interested in hearing your justification for this. Why not? This has been done loads of times. The famous example? Marriage and race. There are also two federal case laws that directly define marriage as a right (Loving vs Virginia and Perez v. Lippold). It can legally be denied to homosexuals only because sexuality is not a federally protected suspect class. I gave you secular justifiable cause for my position. You ignored it because it doesn't provide a benefit for you. You have yet to do this (and I can show how I am harmed by your morality). I have no issue with your justification being religious, if you would just say so, but you seem intent on the secular, which is why I'm continuing this conversation. Hash it out dude, and present it please. You said you had a secular reason for denying same-sex marriage that was based on secular morality. I was just trying to find out what that was. I agree that morals don't need to be secular - but you are the one who claimed you could defend this position, and that intrigued me. I agree, which is why I think homosexuals can be moral. Agreed. I just haven't heard you say what these reasons are! I didn't mean to claim it did. Was I unclear? The exception, not the rule. Even the church teaches that most will not have this outcome. Hmmm... too bad you know nothing about me, or what I've been through in this regard. It's easy to blame failure on "not wanting it enough" or "not trying hard enough" when you have no idea what you are talking about. I find this attack on me personally (not that I mind - I kind of get used to it), laughable. For the record I really like talking to you! I find it refreshing to hash out how I'm feeling, and hope I'm helping you do the same. We'll probably never agree, but both of us are sharpening our positions. Thank you.