Gay and Lesbian Unions

[Starfish]

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

I don't know your brother and I have no right to question his sincerity. That said, I've lived long enough to have noticed a few things about human nature.

People go to great lengths to convince themselves and others of something they WANT to believe. We all want to be happy, including people like your brother. Maybe he HAS found happiness for now, but one thing is for sure, he WANTS to believe he has. We all do.

Your brother was raised LDS. He's been taught. There has to be conflict deep within him. Suppressing that conflict takes work and over time saps one's strength. IMO true happiness is when all the good & right influences in your life agree. When your conscience agrees with your choices. Ultimately your brother cannot or will not truly be happy until he makes changes. If this isn't so, then the scriptures are wrong. If the scriptures are wrong, then our iron rod is gone, and God ceases to be.

Bottom line: Your brother is a beloved son of God. I'm sure God hears your prayers and remembers the promises that your parents were given.

[Brother Dorsey]

After reading through this thread I thought I'd put in my own 2 cents. For those that "feel" for the gays and their supposed "rights" and those that are on the fence about the whole SS marriage thing....just remember who's behind it all, who is the one who is trying to normalize gay relationships, trying to make society accept this lifestyle? It's become a "normal" thing on TV and in the movies. Satan is the father of all lies and he is doing all he can to undermine the standards of the Lord. "Oh, they just want their rights". NO, they want society to accept their lifestyles as normal. Homosexuality is a sin against God, it is unnatural in nature. I personally will never accept their sin as "normal" and I will stand and fight with the Lord to preserve His standard. Slowly and surely Satan has made the sinful things of this world "normal" to the eyes of society. If those who stand behind gay marriage because they believe it's their "right"....then what about the next perverted group in line wanting their "rights" too? Maybe Bob wants to marry his dog? Or Shirley wants to marry her horse? What about a pedophiles "right" to have pictures of children? I could go on and on....see how dangerous this is? The sad thing is this is how Satan has operated.....think back just 40 years ago....the Lords standard was heeded a lot more than it is today. Satan is winning this war people. We have to stand and fight with the Lord! And that's my 2 cents.

[jase67]

I am a reader of the forums but have not commented before. After reading through these posts and all the current events, I felt I had to comment. I like everyone here believe in the sanctity of marriage, but I don't understand why we care what the gays do. If there is anything that is destroying the institution of marriage it is divorce. Divorce has ruined more families, cost more money, and left more broken homes than gay marriage ever has or would. We are all hypocrats for saying that we must stop gay marriage to protect the institution of marriage and the bedrock of our society while over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

I like everyone love my religion, but I do not believe it gives me the right to judge others especially when what they are doing has no effect on me whatsoever. As long as my marriage is secure, my children are safe and happy, and I can live my life in peace, I really do not care what other people do. Gays getting married has absolutely no effect on me, my family, or my marriage anymore than divorce does.

I truly believe that it is time all of us, Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc., stop trying to claim a monopoly on God and allow others to do as they please between consenting adults. I do not want the government in my bedroom and I have no interst in being in anybody elses. Not to mention that besides being Mormon we are also Americans. And as much as I love my religion it really does have no place in government. It sets a very dangerous precedent in this country to start legislating based on our religious beliefs.

I'm sure many if not all the people on this forum will disagree with me but I would bet every penny I have ever made in my life that there is not one person here (myself included), or in this country, or even the world, who follows the book of God word for word every day of their life. What gives us the right to judge others?

[LolaBella]

After reading through this thread I thought I'd put in my own 2 cents. For those that "feel" for the gays and their supposed "rights" and those that are on the fence about the whole SS marriage thing....just remember who's behind it all, who is the one who is trying to normalize gay relationships, trying to make society accept this lifestyle? It's become a "normal" thing on TV and in the movies. Satan is the father of all lies and he is doing all he can to undermine the standards of the Lord. "Oh, they just want their rights". NO, they want society to accept their lifestyles as normal. Homosexuality is a sin against God, it is unnatural in nature. I personally will never accept their sin as "normal" and I will stand and fight with the Lord to preserve His standard. Slowly and surely Satan has made the sinful things of this world "normal" to the eyes of society. If those who stand behind gay marriage because they believe it's their "right"....then what about the next perverted group in line wanting their "rights" too? Maybe Bob wants to marry his dog? Or Shirley wants to marry her horse? What about a pedophiles "right" to have pictures of children? I could go on and on....see how dangerous this is? The sad thing is this is how Satan has operated.....think back just 40 years ago....the Lords standard was heeded a lot more than it is today. Satan is winning this war people. We have to stand and fight with the Lord! And that's my 2 cents.

Brother Dorsey, I had to smile at the arrogance of your post. You say that 'gays just want to be accepted as normal.' How TERRIBLE!!! I know from the churches point of view they are wrong, and it is of satan etc etc etc. You assume that they must KNOW this therefore are INCREDULOUS at their AUDACITY to want to be accepted!! Gay people do not have the church or the gospel, so why on earth would they NOT want to be accepted as normal? They do not think they are sinning. They do not sit there and think, 'wow Im such a sinner. In fact, I know I am evil for wanting to be accepted by society, but hell I want that anyway' Of course they dont! They want rights, acceptance and equality just like anyone in the world. I don't think we can condemn them for a sin that members believe they are committing, but that they know nothing about!!!

[Brother Dorsey]

Brother Dorsey, I had to smile at the arrogance of your post. You say that 'gays just want to be accepted as normal.' How TERRIBLE!!! I know from the churches point of view they are wrong, and it is of satan etc etc etc. You assume that they must KNOW this therefore are INCREDULOUS at their AUDACITY to want to be accepted!! Gay people do not have the church or the gospel, so why on earth would they NOT want to be accepted as normal? They do not think they are sinning. They do not sit there and think, 'wow Im such a sinner. In fact, I know I am evil for wanting to be accepted by society, but hell I want that anyway' Of course they dont! They want rights, acceptance and equality just like anyone in the world. I don't think we can condemn them for a sin that members believe they are committing, but that they know nothing about!!!

That's not what I wrote...I wrote: "they want society to accept their lifestyles as normal", which is absolutely true. They believe that being gay is normal and therefore are trying to (through legislation) force mainstream society to accept their lifestyle as normal. Yes gays want rights, acceptance and equality....and they mostly have it, I don't have any problem with gays....if someone chooses that lifestyle then that's their choice....they are children of the most High God and have their free agency. What I don't like is those who choose that lifestyle trying to force me, through legislation to accept their lifestyle as normal. As members of the church of God we know this type of lifestyle is an abomination before the Lord and a sin. So, should we be forced to condone this abomination and sin as normal? Personally I do not want my children growing up in a world where they are force fed through the courts that homosexuality is normal. That in order to be "politically correct" they have to be taught in public schools that being gay is normal! As I said before....I stand with the Lord on this one!

[Brother Dorsey]

And as much as I love my religion it really does have no place in government. It sets a very dangerous precedent in this country to start legislating based on our religious beliefs.

Huh? This country was founded on Christian principles! Read the constitution, read the D of I, read your money!

And by the way, just for your information there is NOTHING in the constitution that says anything about seperation of church and state.

The only time it mentions religon is where it says the government will have no state church, in other words there will be no government sanctioned church as was the norm in Europe at the time where citizens were forced to attend the state church and none other.

[Brother Dorsey]

Gays getting married has absolutely no effect on me, my family, or my marriage

Well, lets take a look at what could happen if the gay community of this nation were given every "politically correct left-wing ALCU" right they want:

1) They could and have sued churches for violating their "right" to be married in said church.

2) They could and have forced teachers in public schools to teach about the normalcy of gay relationships.

3) They could and have sued adoption agencies run by religous organizations who would not place a child in their gay home.

4) Suppose legally married gay members of the LDS church wanted to go to the Temple? Remember they are not breaking the law of chastity as they are now legally married. Could they force the church to allow them to be sealed in the Temple?

[candyprpl]

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.

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?

In the LDS Church we have members who are gay/lesbian. They are already members of the Church. Here is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks, one of the Apostles says:

"Some Latter-day Saints face the confusion and pain that result when a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex, or even when a person has erotic feelings that could lead toward such behavior. How should Church leaders, parents, and other members of the Church react when faced with the religious, emotional, and family challenges that accompany such behavior or feelings? What do we say to a young person who reports that he or she is attracted toward or has erotic thoughts or feelings about persons of the same sex? How should we respond when a person announces that he is a homosexual or she is a lesbian and that scientific evidence "proves" he or she was "born that way"? How do we react when persons who do not share our beliefs accuse us of being intolerant or unmerciful when we insist that erotic feelings toward a person of the same sex are irregular and that any sexual behavior of that nature is sinful?

GOSPEL DOCTRINES

Our attitudes toward these questions are dictated by gospel doctrines we know to be true.

Elder Oaks lists 11 of these doctrines.

I think that members who are gay/lesbian would be thrilled to be members who could marry -- however, they know that that is not true doctrine and would not be allowed and they choose to live a life without marriage. Elder Oaks -- "Through the merciful plan of our Father in Heaven, persons who desire to do what is right but through no fault of their own are unable to have an eternal marriage in mortal life will have an opportunity to qualify for eternal life in a period following mortality, if they keep the commandments of God and are true to their baptismal and other covenants.

Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley

"Nethertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gay and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, (emphasis added) whether single or married.

DS -- I know I picked your quote to start my post, but don't think I'm picking on you. I've just been working on my own feelings and understanding of the doctrine and these quotes from Church leaders came to mind when I read your post.:)

[Moksha]

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.

There is no forum to discuss issues other than informally on the internet.

Your questions are intriguing, since you guys started from the same roots. Could we assume Gays are welcome and not marginalized in your Church? If so, what leads you to such a way of being?

[Guest DeborahC]

I suppose I don't understand why they want marriage. Why aren't civil unions or other such unions enough of a compromise??

Perhaps someone can explain to me why, in the US, the civil unions are insufficient for the G/L activists.

I think by putting all gay and lesbian people under the title of "THEY" we are doing the larger community a great disservice.

My own son is gay and he and his community see NO REASON to change the marriage laws. They are perfectly happy with civil union laws that protect their rights.

"THEY" are also activists, just NOT for this particular Proposition.:)

[Traveler]

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.

I think it is fair to call into account those with a "gay agenda" that claim that gay marriage (or for sake of discussion - gay relationships) is as important and necessary to society as heterosexual marriage and therefore needs to be recognized in every possible way under the force of law. What exactly is the purpose of such demands and for what benefit?

The Traveler

Edited November 24, 2008 by Traveler

[Traveler]

I think by putting all gay and lesbian people under the title of "THEY" we are doing the larger community a great disservice.

My own son is gay and he and his community see NO REASON to change the marriage laws. They are perfectly happy with civil union laws that protect their rights.

"THEY" are also activists, just NOT for this particular Proposition.:)

May I ask you a very simple and straight forward question? What have you (if anything) benefited from the “gayness” of your son? Please do not include anything other than gayness or non-gayness in answering this question. Assuming that offspring (children) is a benefit – from the non-gayness of my sons, (not considering any other factor) I have the benefit of grandchildren.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Huh? This country was founded on Christian principles! Read the constitution, read the D of I, read your money!

Do you feel that statement about all having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was going a bit overboard? Would you modify it?

[Brother Dorsey]

Do you feel that statement about all having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was going a bit overboard? Would you modify it?

Well my penguin friend I would not change one thing...I firmly believe that everyone has a right to life (including unborn babies), liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the freedom to be happy and seek joy.....as long as it is done under the standards the Lord has set as put forth by the founding fathers.

Now think about this very carefully....what if it made a person very happy to seek out and rape children? Is that their "right"? To pursue their "happiness"? Should the government (or people) allow this liberty (or freedom) to them? And of course any sane person would say no, no, no!

In a democracy it's the majority of the people who choose the standards and where the line is drawn through laws and the courts. The founding fathers started us out using the Lords standards and over the years Satan has twisted and changed and tweaked that standard and the liberal left is pushing it even further away from the Lord.

It's called being "politically correct"....

I'd rather live by the Lord's standard and be "religiously correct"

Ahhh, but a lot of those "politically correct" folks will say,"Why should we conform to the religious rights standard, why should we accept it?"

And the answer is: Because the majority have spoken! And that my penguin friend is how democracy works.

In California a number of years ago the majority of people voted to ban gay marriage and it became law...then 4 left wing judges in San Francisco decided it wasn't fair or "politically correct" so they in their leftist wisdom overturned the peoples vote. And when they did this they took away the desires of the majority in favor of the desires of the minority. (this is not democracy) So, the only way the majority could win back their desires was to have it put in California's constitution that the only legally recognized marriage is between a man and a woman...that way no liberal judges could change the law at their whim....it could only be changed by the majority vote of the people of California.....ala a democratic vote!

Without the Lord's standard this country would not have stood....

Without the Lord's standard this country cannot stand....

Just remember what happened to the Nephite nation!

[Misshalfway]

Do you feel that statement about all having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was going a bit overboard? Would you modify it?

Does making gay marriage legal have bearing on happiness? Are you really saying that it is possible to legislate happiness??

Wickedness never was happiness. It never will be happiness even if we legislate it to be so.

[Misshalfway]

I think by putting all gay and lesbian people under the title of "THEY" we are doing the larger community a great disservice.

My own son is gay and he and his community see NO REASON to change the marriage laws. They are perfectly happy with civil union laws that protect their rights.

"THEY" are also activists, just NOT for this particular Proposition.:)

You will have to forgive me for failing to acknowledge the factions within the faction. I am glad to hear that there are those amongst the activists that don't need to destroy the definitions of traditional marriage and the value it holds for a significant portion of Americans in order to find freedom to live the way they choose.

[Moksha]

Does making gay marriage legal have bearing on happiness? Are you really saying that it is possible to legislate happiness??

Wickedness never was happiness. It never will be happiness even if we legislate it to be so.

I have heard tell that marriage makes many happy. Are we sure that wickedness does not accrue when we take away another groups free agency? At least I have heard that arguement advanced for both polygamy and for those, making gobs of money, who want to hoard it.

[Elphaba]

May I ask you a very simple and straight forward question? What have you (if anything) benefited from the “gayness” of your son? Please do not include anything other than gayness or non-gayness in answering this question. Assuming that offspring (children) is a benefit – from the non-gayness of my sons, (not considering any other factor) I have the benefit of grandchildren.

When you ask a question, you don’t get to tell the person how to answer.

I would suspect Deborah’s answer would be that she has a son that she loves, and who loves her back, regardless of sexual orientation. Of course, Deborah may answer the question differently. If my children were gay, that's what I would say.

Assuming that offspring (children) is a benefit – from the non-gayness of my sons, (not considering any other factor) I have the benefit of grandchildren.

People who are gay can have children, either biologically or adopted. Thus, Deborah could also have the benefit of grandchildren.

Elphaba

[annewandering]

i really never thought about the 'benefits' my children bring me because they are not gay..

for some reason that sounds just wrong and awfully selfish.

[Traveler]

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.

I believe we have a precedent of how religions will be treated once there is legal leverage - the same manner in which the Boy Scouts have been treated. Although the Boy Scouts have not lost their tax exempt status yet - please do not pretend that the Boy Scouts have not had to spend a great deal of money - several times (and it is not over because various orginizations like the ALCU have publically stated the will continue to look for ways to bring the Boy Scouts to court) in an effort to force by legislattion the gay morality upon them.

The Traveler

[OtterPop]

The Boy Scouts are not a religion, which makes a big difference. Freedom to practice your religion is a Constitutional right. Freedom be a scout is not.

[Elphaba]

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?

Do you seriously think people who are heterosexual are going to stop having sex?

This argument against gay marriage is just plain obtuse.

Elphaba

[interalia]

Isn't it ironic that some gays want marriage, when many heterosexual couples who can and should be married, choose not to?

I think they want general public acceptance.

I think you are very close. I wrote this some time ago with regard to this subject and will post it here.

*****

In the ongoing debate concerning gay marriage I repeatedly see two different arguments made by those on each side of the issue. However, despite these primary arguments, the issue is really about something deeper.

Anti-Gay Marriage - Its About Protecting the Definition of Marriage

The primary argument used by those who are against gay marriage is that that allowing gay marriage will redefine marriage. What does redefining marriage mean? According to this argument, marriage is a word that by definition includes only a union between a man and woman. By making this claim they posit that for marriage to be open to allowing same sex couples, then marriage's basic definition will be changed.

The argument against this proposes that marriage is only defined as a union between a man and a woman because that is the traditional definition but is by no means complete. Allowing gay marriage would not change the definition but rather expand its definition to include same sex marriages. This idea is evident in Webster's Dictionary which now contains a definition of marriage for both opposite and same sex couples.

Pro-Gay Marriage - Its About Civil Rights

The primary argument used by those who are for gay marriage revolves around civil rights. The argument is that by not allowing gays the right to marry they are denied various civil rights. Those for gay marriage repeatedly say same sex couples are being denied the right to marry and that by not being allowed to marry, the state or nation where they live will not afford them specific rights given to married individuals.

The argument against this is two fold. Firstly by the traditional definition of marriage, all gays have the right to marry – someone of the opposite sex – and thus are not denied any civil rights. This of course uses the traditional definition of marriage and is not how same-sex couples intend their explanation of their loss of their marriage right – they believe they do not have the right to be married to the person they love regardless of their sex.

Concerning the loss of state and national rights, those against gay marriage explain that a civil union has all the same rights afforded to it as a marriage (at least in California) and so there is no loss in civil rights between the two definitions.

Its Really About Validation

These two arguments are just surface issues though. Sure there is some weight given to those who are against marriage's redefinition just as there is weight to those who claim their civil rights are being denied, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is validation of lifestyle.

If gay marriage is allowed it validates the gay lifestyle in ways that civil unions do not. Marriage is the traditional form of union and that which is most widely understood and accepted. Having a union that is not defined as a marriage diminishes its value (regardless if there is any real difference in practice at all). Gays have been seeking validation for their lifestyle for decades (if not longer) and having their unions solidified by the traditional word, marriage, would represent a new shift in wide scale acceptance of gay lifestyles.

Those who are against gay marriage are against it for the same reason – validation. Most against gay marriage believe it to be fundamentally inappropriate (some say sinful) and not desirous for the population. They have various reasons as to why this is, but in the end, allowing gay marriage would further validate gay lifestyles and legitimize it for this and future generations (promoting more same-sex experimentation and general acceptance among the youth). For those who see this as an issue of moral impurity, validating the gay lifestyle is like endorsing the destruction of society – not an easy thing to ask of anyone who feels strongly about it.

There are idiots on both sides of this discussion, and so we need not judge the validity of the others' arguments by the extremists – there are bigots on both sides. But as long as we continue to focus on the more surface issues of marriage redefinition and civil rights, this debate will go on and on with neither side making progress. When we are honest with ourselves however concerning the true issue, it will allow us to move closer to understanding of both sides. Considering the extreme polarizing moral effects of this decision however, we can only assume things will get worse before they get better.

[Traveler]

The Boy Scouts are not a religion, which makes a big difference. Freedom to practice your religion is a Constitutional right. Freedom be a scout is not.

Wow!!! Your post is a most interesting commentary on the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I find your point of view a direct violation of the right for American citizens to assemble as organized through the Boy Scouts. You are talking about the core freedom of speech. Please understand that there are many that want to silence such free speech. When have the Boy Scouts not assembled peaceably?

I see a strong precedent to destroy basic freedoms of all that do not agree in Gay morality in the name of “Gay-rights”. I could not disagree with your point more.

The Traveler

Edited December 1, 2008 by Traveler

[Traveler]

It is very interesting how “rights” are defined. Here is a link in today’s news: FOXNews.com - Activists Target Mormons for Gay-Marriage Ban's Success in California - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Some organizations within the gay movement are currently being investigated for hate crimes (torching of a Book of Mormon on a church doorstep) – as well as the use of postal delivery for substances in a threading manner – attempts at preventing peaceful assembly.

Very interesting – On this issue we may see who respects the law and who fosters and upholds those willing to break the law in order to force (by whatever means, even illegal means) their morals. If it is really about civil rights – why encourage or allow anyone to violate the civil rights someone else because there is disagreement? In truth it never really was about civil rights; it is about taking control and making all conform and about taking away the freedom of speech from everyone in disagreement.

The Traveler