Gay and Lesbian Unions

[DigitalShadow]

:) Well yes, I suppose they could, but that would undermine the fidelity of the marriage vow, now wouldn't it?

One word... spermcicle. I'll leave it at that

Now we are getting into the definition of marriage. It works because marriage is between a man and a woman. If the partners are not of the opposite gender then it isn't marriage. It is something else.

Definitions of everything change over time (if you don't believe me, look at the entire history of the word marriage). Denying rights just to keep a specific definition of a word doesn't make much sense to me.

[DigitalShadow]

Well, I don't think everybody wants this. But I do think that their is a great need for forced acceptance, validation, etc and there are some that want achieve such approval even if they have to legislate to get it.

But as far as I know there is no precedent for legislating a religion has to "accept" certain members and even if that is what some people want, there is absolutely no way it could happen. Arguing against same sex marriage because it is a part of an imaginary slippery slope does not make sense to me.

[Misshalfway]

One word... spermcicle. I'll leave it at that

You know..... there are moments in these conversations when I realize how naive I really am. :)

Definitions of everything change over time (if you don't believe me, look at the entire history of the word marriage). Denying rights just to keep a specific definition of a word doesn't make much sense to me.

I have actually wrestled with this one myself. I am coming to understand that definitions, if changed, change the nature of the law. I am also learning that some definitions shouldn't change. Doing so changes the nature of things. In this case, we are talking about right and wrong. ( i know ... i know) Sometimes we must preserve the original meaning of things or we lose something that is very difficult to get back. Preserving the constitution is a prime example of what I mean. You change the original meanings, and you lose the power of the position and the protection it could have created.

[Misshalfway]

But as far as I know there is no precedent for legislating a religion has to "accept" certain members and even if that is what some people want, there is absolutely no way it could happen. Arguing against same sex marriage because it is a part of an imaginary slippery slope does not make sense to me.

Yeah.... I am fuzzy on this one too.

[DigitalShadow]

I have actually wrestled with this one myself. I am coming to understand that definitions, if changed, change the nature of the law. I am also learning that some definitions shouldn't change. Doing so changes the nature of things. In this case, we are talking about right and wrong. ( i know ... i know) Sometimes we must preserve the original meaning of things or we lose something that is very difficult to get back. Preserving the constitution is a prime example of what I mean. You change the original meanings, and you lose the power of the position and the protection it could have created.

Thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I still don't agree on the topic of marriage, but that was a very insightful comment.

[adie_vale]

Although I do not believe same sex unions are approved of by God I also don't believe that forcing our standards on others who don't share them is approved of by God either. Here in England we have civil partnerships which are often referred to as gay marriages but they are not legally marriages, yet they do have all the same legalities. They are conducted in places other than churches and of course if the church were to be forced to conduct them then that would be a valid cause for objecting but as it stands I really don't see that we have the right to tell other people how they should live.

That's what I was heading to explain.

[Hemidakota]

Perhaps in England it maybe ok but people, the Americas according to the Book of Mormon and those who are called Prophets, live under the commandments that is given by the Master Himself. If you had read the BoM, you can clearly see what happened to the Jaredites and the Nephites; will again happen to us if we, the Americas, if we are not diligent and obedience to Him. “When iniquity abound, we are ripe for destruction."

[Moksha]

So should we give the same benefits for those who live together?

Just living together as a couple would not cut it, since many would still oppose this as a common law marriage. Besides, there are no legal entitlements granted to homosexuals by just shacking up. Most jurisdictions do not even grant common law marriages to heterosexuals.

No, it would have to be certified by a license at the Marriage and Domestic Partnership Bureau. That way marriage as an entity could be preserved for the heterosexual majority, while at the same time homosexuals would not feel like their rights have been egregiously denied by an intolerant majority.

[Hemidakota]

Sarcasm my friend.

[Moksha]

Sarcasm my friend.

Sorry, didn't realize you were being sarcastic. That is okay, I think I gave a good answer to the question anyway. :)

[Traveler]

Wasn't sure weather to post this elsewere or start a new thread,

so I started a new thread. :) So forgive me if I should have posted elsewere.

Here in Canberra Australia Gay and Lesbian Unions are legal.

While they go through a ceremony its not classed as a wedding and its not recognised under the Marriage Act so its not a "legal wedding".

The ACT Government did try for legal marriage for same sex couples but was knocked back by the Federal Government due to same sex weddings contraviening the Marriage Act

I am not trying to start a verbal war. Just point a very important piece in the discussion about marriage. I have yet to understand any benefit to society for recognition of marriage for same sex couples. I am not impressed by the crowd that threatens demonstrations, violence and other such thing against those that do not adhere to their political addenda. In fact it does seem that to give into such methods is in and of itself destructive to liberty and a free society. If there is no convincing logic – why should we look upon demonstrations and such as positive? Should not demonstrations be for the purpose of gaining attention – if so why go out of your way to tick off those that you would hope to gain attention?

I believe in a live and let live attitude about most things. But I believe that for human society to continue there must be an attitude of support for something that guarantees a next generation that will live in a manner of supporting more future generations. In other words – I believe that there must be incentive for anything to happen. If there is no incentive to marry for children then we cannot expect a next generation. Dah!

If same sex marriage are defined by legal declaration to be in every possible way equal to heterosexual marriage – what incentive is there to insure a next generation?

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

This is in the news today:

Same-sex marriage begins in Conn.

Boston Globe

[john doe]

I have heard that argument used as justification before but it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would a same sex couple even want to be a part of a church or be married by a church that thinks they are going to hell and committing a huge sin? Why do so many people perceive allowing same sex marriage as an "attack" on their religion?

I really do want to understand this point of view and I'm not saying this just for the sake of argument.

The gay agenda is that they want to be accepted in all quarters and they do not want to be judged as sinners for the choices that they make. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. Their goal is to remove all opposition to their immorality. They feel they can move toward achieving that goal if they can be accepted as full members in good standing of churches which have historically condemned their actions.

My wife has a very good friend who we have known for decades. He claims that if the LDS Church were to change its stand on gays, he would return in a heartbeat. So basically what he's saying is that if we were to throw out all the sins concerning sexual morality then he would be willing to forgive God for calling such conduct a sin.

[DigitalShadow]

The gay agenda is that they want to be accepted in all quarters and they do not want to be judged as sinners for the choices that they make. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. Their goal is to remove all opposition to their immorality. They feel they can move toward achieving that goal if they can be accepted as full members in good standing of churches which have historically condemned their actions.

My wife has a very good friend who we have known for decades. He claims that if the LDS Church were to change its stand on gays, he would return in a heartbeat. So basically what he's saying is that if we were to throw out all the sins concerning sexual morality then he would be willing to forgive God for calling such conduct a sin.

I'm sure that are some people with that agenda who are gay, but I don't think there are enough of them for it to be fair to call it the "gay agenda" any more than it is fair to call the extermination (by killing) of gays the "Christian agenda" because I have heard some Christians who strongly advocate that.

[Hemidakota]

Perhaps, it is the same advocates who believe in KILLING THE MORMONS.

[DigitalShadow]

Perhaps, it is the same advocates who believe in KILLING THE MORMONS.

Judging an entire group by a minority of them who advocate extreme views is not helpful or fair and most people don't like it when that type of logic is turned on them.

[cousin]

I'm not lds, i'm community of christ. I'm curious, in your congregations how is this subject discussed? Is it assumed that there are no gay people or family members in the pews? It just seems kind of hurtful here, like gays are written off and not welcomed. i'm guessing it can't be like this in the church setting.

[Starfish]

I'm sure homosexual couples want marriage for the same reasons heterosexuals do-To show their commitment to one another, and to gain the same rights. A gay couple could live together for 20+ years, and when one of them dies, their partner gets nothing. I feel this is wrong, as you should be able to state whom you want your estate to go to. I don't think people's personal opinions pon homosexuality matter that much. As Christians we should be tolerant enough to accept people's choices and lifestyles even if they differ from our own. If a gay couple want to get married and have the same rights as straight couples, why shoudn't they? It's not like they are going to canpaign for straight marriage to be outlawed. They want the same rights as the majority of the population.

Why is that difficult for some people to understand?

I understand what you're saying. But what about children? What about gay couples adopting babies? What about gay couples, through outside help, conceiving and bearing children? All of this would have to be allowed if gay marriage is legalized.

If so, then this is saying fathers are not important to a child. Or that mothers are not important. That any woman can substitute for a father, or that any man can substitute for a mother.

To conceive, they must rely on a third person. Will this third parent be involved in the child's life? Are there guarantees this bio-parent will stay away? Isn't this bringing confusion and risk into a child's life? How will the child feel about this when the child becomes an adult?

I'm trying to see this from the point of view of children, and their rights.

[skalenfehl]

I'm sure homosexual couples want marriage for the same reasons heterosexuals do-To show their commitment to one another, and to gain the same rights. A gay couple could live together for 20+ years, and when one of them dies, their partner gets nothing. I feel this is wrong, as you should be able to state whom you want your estate to go to. I don't think people's personal opinions pon homosexuality matter that much. As Christians we should be tolerant enough to accept people's choices and lifestyles even if they differ from our own. If a gay couple want to get married and have the same rights as straight couples, why shoudn't they? It's not like they are going to canpaign for straight marriage to be outlawed. They want the same rights as the majority of the population.

Why is that difficult for some people to understand?

LolaBella, respectfully, this question has already been addressed more than once in prop 8 forum. There have been legal ramifications towards individuals (parents), churches, and volunteer organizations. Churches have the legal right to speak out on such issues, especially when it directly and indirectly affects places of worship, etc.

Points:

1. Religious liberties and freedom of speech may be curtailed. Included are the rights of religious organizations to speak out against positions they view as harmful and the rights of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. In Massachusetts, a parent did not want his 5 year old child to be taught about gay marriage and the courts ruled they have not rights to opt out and they arrested the parent. (Parker Case - US District Judge Mark L. Wolf). Shouldn't this be up to the parent to teach his or her children about the facts of life?

3. In New Jersey they sued a Methodist Church for not allowing homosexual marriages. The church claimed it was private property and the judge ruled against the church and it lost its tax exemption status. (Bernstein & Pastor vs. Ocean Grove Methodist Church).

4. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by govt. agencies to give up their long held right to place children in homes with a mother and father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachussetts because courts legalized same sex marriage there.

5. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same sex couples even if it counters its church doctrine or risk a law suit.

6. Ministers who speak out against same sex marriage may be sued for hate speech and risk govt. fines.

People have the right to petition and vote against others' rights when their own constitutional rights are being attacked or threatened. Our church as all other churches and organizations have a right to defend their own constitutional rights as well.

Edited November 13, 2008 by skalenfehl
I mixed up the cases.

[Starfish]

I'm not lds, i'm community of christ. I'm curious, in your congregations how is this subject discussed? Is it assumed that there are no gay people or family members in the pews? It just seems kind of hurtful here, like gays are written off and not welcomed. i'm guessing it can't be like this in the church setting.

Hi Cousin, (Isn't Community of Christ the former RLDS?) To be honest, it's rarely discussed openly, meaning in talks and lessons--as far as I've seen. There is so much to learn about the gospel, that is all-inclusive. Such as faith, repentence, prayer, charity, the scriptures, etc. This is what we usually focus on.

Yes, the subject of eternal marriage and families would be painful to one who has lost hope of marrying in this life. Just as it would be to all single people. Don't know how to avoid that. We do know, and it's stressed ALOT, that ALL righteous children of God will receive all blessings, including marriage and family. It just may have to wait till after this life.

When you really understand the gospel, it all makes sense, and it's tremendously comforting. This life is a test. Plain and simple. Some just have different trials than others. Homosexuality, IMO, would be one of the worst.

[LolaBella]

I understand what you're saying. But what about children? What about gay couples adopting babies? What about gay couples, through outside help, conceiving and bearing children? All of this would have to be allowed if gay marriage is legalized.

If so, then this is saying fathers are not important to a child. Or that mothers are not important. That any woman can substitute for a father, or that any man can substitute for a mother.

To conceive, they must rely on a third person. Will this third parent be involved in the child's life? Are there guarantees this bio-parent will stay away? Isn't this bringing confusion and risk into a child's life? How will the child feel about this when the child becomes an adult?

I'm trying to see this from the point of view of children, and their rights.

I understand your concerns, and skalenfehl's too. I am very torn over this issue. On the one hand I feel that a child deserves a Father and a Mother if possible. But this is not the only environment children thrive in. Parents can die, there are single parent families, it's unrealistic to expect every single child will live with a Mother and a Father, because unfortunately, life does not work that way.

On the other hand, I think that some children are better off in a home where they will be loved and nurtured (by a gay couple) than have no home at all. I watched a Montel episode once where they were interviewing gay families. There was a gay couple who had a teenage daughter. She was a polite, respectful, well rounded girl and she said she can't undertstand why people are so against it, she is happy, does not feel she has missed out on anything, she is straight(!!). There was nothing to suggest this girl was disadvantaged in any way. Plus she would have the added bonus of growing up without being hostile or predjudiced towards others lifestyles. She looked to me like she would become a worthy member of society.

So I am torn-I would hate to think children could grow up without the benefit of Parents like I had-I can't imagine not having a Mom or a Dad-and when I look at my girls, the thought of them not having me but a another man instead makes my blood run cold. But seeing gay couples who have adopted and how well it seems to work makes me wonder what I am so afraid of.

[RainofGold]

When you really understand the gospel, it all makes sense, and it's tremendously comforting. This life is a test. Plain and simple. Some just have different trials than others. Homosexuality, IMO, would be one of the worst.

I completely agree with you, I think that being homosexual has to be the hardest trial. And I'm talking from a lds perspective. For one you have no hope of being married and having a family in this life. All you can do as a gay person is to be strong and not act on those feelings. I can't imagine the pain that they must go through.

I know that my brother who is gay and used to be lds is very proud to be gay. He says he is very happy living a with his companion, that he hasn't felt this happy since he was a little boy.

Then think, don't they tell us in church that "wickedness was never happiness"?.

Then, is there no hope for them in the celestial glory?

Rain

[skalenfehl]

So I am torn-I would hate to think children could grow up without the benefit of Parents like I had-I can't imagine not having a Mom or a Dad-and when I look at my girls, the thought of them not having me but a another man instead makes my blood run cold. But seeing gay couples who have adopted and how well it seems to work makes me wonder what I am so afraid of.

As an adoptive parent I can empathize. My boys went through a different scenario. We have many social issues not just revolving around gay marriage, but also heterosexual people marrying, or not marrying, drugs, pornography, rape, abortion, alcoholism, etc.

How many barren parents miss out because of other irresponsible people abusing the powers of procreation and aborting a human being's life? It kind of makes me step back and look at what it means to abort something. If we as a society could (find ways to) solve the many social problems (arising from simple selfishness) of our own accord, we would have many fewer symptoms to deal with. This is part of what our fight as Christians is.

Edited November 13, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Misshalfway]

I think we are fighting for traditional families in every arena of our society. We want to curb divorce. We want fathers to show up. We want children to have the best of situations in which to be raised.

There is no doubt that SS couples have just as much love to give as any of us. And I think there is room in this society for lots of different familial circumstances. But it is traditional family that is the most essential unit and must be protected for the benefit of all.

[Starfish]

I understand your concerns, and skalenfehl's too. I am very torn over this issue. On the one hand I feel that a child deserves a Father and a Mother if possible. But this is not the only environment children thrive in. Parents can die, there are single parent families, it's unrealistic to expect every single child will live with a Mother and a Father, because unfortunately, life does not work that way.

On the other hand, I think that some children are better off in a home where they will be loved and nurtured (by a gay couple) than have no home at all. I watched a Montel episode once where they were interviewing gay families. There was a gay couple who had a teenage daughter. She was a polite, respectful, well rounded girl and she said she can't undertstand why people are so against it, she is happy, does not feel she has missed out on anything, she is straight(!!). There was nothing to suggest this girl was disadvantaged in any way. Plus she would have the added bonus of growing up without being hostile or predjudiced towards others lifestyles. She looked to me like she would become a worthy member of society.

So I am torn-I would hate to think children could grow up without the benefit of Parents like I had-I can't imagine not having a Mom or a Dad-and when I look at my girls, the thought of them not having me but a another man instead makes my blood run cold. But seeing gay couples who have adopted and how well it seems to work makes me wonder what I am so afraid of.

Concerning children:

I feel we, as the adults, have the God-given responsibility TO DO OUR BEST to give our children the optimum environment. This means a mom, a dad, love, security, committment, and an environment where they can best learn about their God and how to return to Him. (This does NOT mean luxuries, money, location, physical beauty, piano lessons, etc.)

If, after we have DONE OUR BEST, our children don't get the optimum--perhaps due to the death of a parent, then we continue to DO OUR BEST for them with help from extended family and friends. We all know that the Lord fills in after we have DONE OUR BEST.

But we have no right to PURPOSELY deny a child of a father or a mother.

Spiritually, as well as biologically, children were meant to have a father and mother. Marriage was instituted by God to create families for eternal purposes as well as to stabilize society especially for the benefit of children.

Again, IMO a child is better off in a loving gay household, than in no household at all. But I'm talking about children for whom there is no other option. Children should not be adopted into gay homes when there are traditional homes available and willing to take them. And gay couples should not use creative conception (involving a 3rd person) to bring a child into their home. This is PURPOSELY denying a child of a father OR a mother. This also goes for unmarried single women who want a baby.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Starfish