LDS Position on Homosexuality & "Eternal Gender"

[Guest Believer_1829]

Traveler, I'm not sure what the thread was originally focused on, but I would never support civil laws that would force any church to accept gltb marriage. I believe that constitutional protection should and will stand. I support the laws in place in Maine that allow people to not be held to equal accomodation requirements when a gltb marriage would compromise their religious beliefs.

I do work to change our civil laws to allow equality in marriage and I do work in my own denomination to promote a change in our policies. But, In my work in these areas I have not found any gltb equality advocate that wants to force any church to perform our marriages. We strongly believe that each religion's choices are the stewardship of the those members, and government has no place meddling in that.

What do you believe about the hate crimes legislation currently before Congress? Following pattern of similar laws in other countries (and even some incidences that have already occurred here), eventually church leaders who oppose the homosexual lifestyle would be fined and even jailed for speaking out against it.

[desirexnoel]

In Mormonism, Kolob is a star or planet mentioned in the Book of Abraham as being nearest to the throne or residence of God. Mention of a star or planet by that name is found within the Book of Abraham, which is canonized by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon fundamentalist organizations, the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ, and other Brighamite Latter Day Saint denominations. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a "star",[1] it appears to refer to planets as stars,[2] and therefore, some commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.[3]

In modern Mormonism, Kolob is a rare topic of discussion within religious contexts. However, it is periodically a topic of discussion with Mormon apologetics. The idea also appears within Mormon culture, including as the subject of a Mormon hymn, and the inspiration for the planet Kobol within the Battlestar Galactica universe, created by Glen A. Larson, a Mormon.

Kolob - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[desirexnoel]

What do you believe about the hate crimes legislation currently before Congress? Following pattern of similar laws in other countries (and even some incidences that have already occurred here), eventually church leaders who oppose the homosexual lifestyle would be fined and even jailed for speaking out against it.

It hadn't happened in Canada. Churches here still generally don't accept gays. Infact I have had gay friends kicked out of churches. They don't even care that much though. It is understood that it is a religious thing.

That is dumb wherever that is happening.

That is if they are only preaching their gospel and not being mean.

[bytebear]

The problem with defining "Kolob" is that it could be interpreted metaphorical and symbolically. Calling it a star or planet is too strict a definition, in my opinion. If you want to see all scripture that uses the term, click here. Your interpretation is as good as any.

Word Search: kolob

[Guest Believer_1829]

It hadn't happened in Canada. Churches here still generally don't accept gays. Infact I have had gay friends kicked out of churches. They don't even care that much though. It is understood that it is a religious thing.

That is dumb wherever that is happening.

That is if they are only preaching their gospel and not being mean.

Actually it has happened in Canada...

A Pastor was brought before a magistrate (is that what you call them there?) and fined for writing an editorial to a newspaper that was critical of homosexuality.

I will find the article, unless someone beats me to it.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Actually it has happened in Canada...

A Pastor was brought before a magistrate (is that what you call them there?) and fined for writing an editorial to a newspaper that was critical of homosexuality.

I will find the article, unless someone beats me to it.

Here are some links:

CitizenLink: Canadian Pastor Fined after Speaking Against Homosexuality

Canadian pastor fined and gagged over gay comments | 2008 News | The Christian Institute

[desirexnoel]

Actually it has happened in Canada...

A Pastor was brought before a magistrate (is that what you call them there?) and fined for writing an editorial to a newspaper that was critical of homosexuality.

I will find the article, unless someone beats me to it.

Okay. Thank you. n_n

I look forward to reading it.

Is that the only case or are there stats or anything?

[Guest Believer_1829]

Okay. Thank you. n_n

I look forward to reading it.

Is that the only case or are there stats or anything?

There is a case in Sweden (?)... an old pastor was actually jailed for comments made during a sermon under the same type of law. Fortunately, the decision against him was overturned.

Found it:

Swedish Pastor Sentenced to Month in Prison for Preaching Against Homosexuality

The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

[desirexnoel]

There is a case in Sweden (?)... an old pastor was actually jailed for comments made during a sermon under the same type of law. Fortunately, the decision against him was overturned.

Found it:

Swedish Pastor Sentenced to Month in Prison for Preaching Against Homosexuality

The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

Thanx, and I'll look at it, but I meant the one in Canada.

[desirexnoel]

It was a "warning to Canada".

What he did say was wrong but I don't think that the laws in Canada are quite the same regarding that. I think it would only count if the homosexuals were harassed in some way.

Also it had nothing to do with allowing gay marriage. It was a separate law calling anything against homosexuals a hate crime.

[ttribe]

Can I have an example please? O.o

There were some very good posts on the subject over at the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (Link) a while back by posters named "SMAC" and "Confidential Informant". However, the topic is on temporary ban over there so they haven't been as active. Nevertheless, the both of them are attorneys and I'd suggest doing some searches for their posts at the site.

In the meantime, I will preface my "off the top of my head" reply by saying I am not an attorney. However, while many wish to make the "slippery slope" argument go away with a wave of hand, I believe there are real dangers here. The passage of legislation allowing SSM, absent specific protections for churches to refuse the performance of such rites, is perilous. Despite the historical strong interpretation of the 1st Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court (I realize you're in Canada), the intersection between these marriage laws and anti-hate speech legislation could easily lead to civil rights complaints and a determination that the gov't could try to force churches to perform these marriages despite their objections. While I know you've said you've never heard such things being called for by GLBT activitists, I'm afraid I have, and it concerns me.

Setting aside any moral objections to the issue, the fact that the word "marriage" has both civil and religious meaning and consequences is a real problem. For this to be resolved, something will need to be done to relieve that tension. Either specifically protect churches, or take the state out of the marriage business altogether. I don't think there's a middle ground here.

Incidentally, I'd suggest some additional reading on at least one area of the world where some believe SSM has had a significant impact on the heterosexual institution of marriage: Link

[Guest Believer_1829]

It was a "warning to Canada".

What he did say was wrong but I don't think that the laws in Canada are quite the same regarding that. I think it would only count if the homosexuals were harassed in some way.

Also it had nothing to do with allowing gay marriage. It was a separate law calling anything against homosexuals a hate crime.

Cousin says the laws will not force churches to condone or perform homosexual marriages, I am providing these cases to show that with hate crimes legislation we could easily be headed in that direction. If Pastors can be jailed or fined for merely speaking out against it, how to we know the next step isn't government sanctions against those churches who refuse to perform the ceremony? Perhaps a revocation of tax-exempt status for being prejudicial against homosexuality?

[desirexnoel]

In the meantime, I will preface my "off the top of my head" reply by saying I am not an attorney. However, while many wish to make the "slippery slope" argument go away with a wave of hand, I believe there are real dangers here. The passage of legislation allowing SSM, absent specific protections for churches to refuse the performance of such rites, is perilous. Despite the historical strong interpretation of the 1st Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court (I realize you're in Canada), the intersection between these marriage laws and anti-hate speech legislation could easily lead to civil rights complaints and a determination that the gov't could try to force churches to perform these marriages despite their objections. While I know you've said you've never heard such things being called for by GLBT activitists, I'm afraid I have, and it concerns me.

But they usually don't. Society isn't crumbling. If it really was that big of a problem it wouldn't be so hard to find instances in Canada where it happened. I don't know if it has happened, but if it has, like I said it isn't often enough to be a problem. The first thing on the LGBT community seems to be that they can now marry... not so much who they are going to sue.

Setting aside any moral objections to the issue, the fact that the word "marriage" has both civil and religious meaning and consequences is a real problem. For this to be resolved, something will need to be done to relieve that tension. Either specifically protect churches, or take the state out of the marriage business altogether. I don't think there's a middle ground here.

They can do what they feel they need to to protect the churches.

But again, it is legal here in Canada, and there is still no collapse in society.

Thank you for the link. I will read it tomorrow. It is late here.

Nighty

[desirexnoel]

Cousin says the laws will not force churches to condone or perform homosexual marriages, I am providing these cases to show that with hate crimes legislation we could easily be headed in that direction. If Pastors can be jailed or fined for merely speaking out against it, how to we know the next step isn't government sanctions against those churches who refuse to perform the ceremony? Perhaps a revocation of tax-exempt status for being prejudicial against homosexuality?

He wasn't really "simply" speaking out against it. He called them a cancer.

I understand why you feel it may be a problem, but apparently it isn't as bad as they all say.

[cofchristcousin]

Really, if you are fearfully of hate speach legislation then I think the best place to address that is focusing on hate speach legislation. Whether gay marriage is legal or not is not a factor.

[Justice]

When we use the word "gay" here are we referring to "same sex attraction" or "same sex relations?" Because they are very different things.

I can't believe any church would kick someone out of it's membership for same sex attraction. However, same sex relations will get you excomunicated from the LDS church just as fast as adultery.

[Traveler]

Your post is rather interesting. What other means are children brought into society other than by a father and a mother?

I said without sex.

And adoption, in the lab. If you want to have sex for your baby though I guess you can...

In this case it is to just allow people to be with who they want to be. They will have no need to protest if they are just allowed to recognize their relationship like a straight couple.

Frankly there is absolutely no reason to not give it to them really. It would make for happier citizens.

What you are saying is not true. Marriage does not guarantee that a person is "with who they want to be". This fact has nothing to do with gender attraction or anything else. Our society does not punish anyone for being with who they want - even if they are married to someone else. Such issues are civil and not criminal and do not apply to marriage.

Again your arguments are empty. I have no problem with people doing what they want - as long as they keep personal things personal and do not demand that I support something that does no good (benefit) to society. Some people are happy if they can take from others or do harm to others. My point is that if they want to be recognized for benefiting society (which is the propose of marriage) - then I expect that they be prepared to demonstrate a benefit.

Now I want you to think about something - you are a strong supporter of same sex marriage and you cannot give any "reason" (logical benefit) - NOT EVEN ONE - for it. Can you not understand my skepticism and unwillingness to support such unreasonable demands that such be granted by power of law? Every evil thing ever done by those that have political power to subject and enslave other segments of society are all done by such justifications. It was this kind of thinking that allowed Hitler to exterminate 12 million Jews. The excuse that it makes someone happy is a very freighting excuse to me. That the only way someone can be happy is knowing that they do nothing to contribute to the benefit of society.

Sorry the more you post – the more I am convinced that not only is such thinking of no benefit but has very bad implications.

The Traveler

[cofchristcousin]

I said without sex.

And adoption, in the lab. If you want to have sex for your baby though I guess you can...

In this case it is to just allow people to be with who they want to be. They will have no need to protest if they are just allowed to recognize their relationship like a straight couple.

Frankly there is absolutely no reason to not give it to them really. It would make for happier citizens.

What you are saying is not true. Marriage does not guarantee that a person is "with who they want to be". This fact has nothing to do with gender attraction or anything else. Our society does not punish anyone for being with who they want - even if they are married to someone else. Such issues are civil and not criminal and do not apply to marriage.

Again your arguments are empty. I have no problem with people doing what they want - as long as they keep personal things personal and do not demand that I support something that does no good (benefit) to society. Some people are happy if they can take from others or do harm to others. My point is that if they want to be recognized for benefiting society (which is the propose of marriage) - then I expect that they be prepared to demonstrate a benefit.

Now I want you to think about something - you are a strong supporter of same sex marriage and you cannot give any "reason" (logical benefit) - NOT EVEN ONE - for it. Can you not understand my skepticism and unwillingness to support such unreasonable demands that such be granted by power of law? Every evil thing ever done by those that have political power to subject and enslave other segments of society are all done by such justifications. It was this kind of thinking that allowed Hitler to exterminate 12 million Jews. The excuse that it makes someone happy is a very freighting excuse to me. That the only way someone can be happy is knowing that they do nothing to contribute to the benefit of society.

Sorry the more you post – the more I am convinced that not only is such thinking of no benefit but has very bad implications.

The Traveler

She didn't offer any, most likely didn't have faith they would be received and considered. I can offer some. The very same benefits that different gender marriage gives society.

It makes for more stable and secure families. 20 - 30% of gay families include some children. It is best we give every family the resources, responsibilities and rights that allow them to provide for their well-being.

Health Insurance for spouse and your spouse's children, survivor benefits, visitation rights, medical decision for the spouse rights, visitation of the children you are raising rights, social security, disability, tax breaks, adoption of the partner's children, the right to bury your own spouse should they die, joint parenting rights such as access to school and medical records, domestic violence intervention, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses, funeral and bereavement leave, the right to be party to securing education loans for your jointly raised children.

I could go on with about 1000 more. These make for more stable families and also give more demanding responsibilities than couples without the legal commitment. The gltb families will exist whether we permit them these rights. For the sake of the children and the well-being of these families, how can we say no?

Edited August 22, 2009 by cofchristcousin

[ttribe]

Health Insurance for spouse and your spouse's children, survivor benefits, visitation rights, medical decision for the spouse rights, visitation of the children you are raising rights, social security, disability, tax breaks, adoption of the partner's children, the right to bury your own spouse should they die, joint parenting rights such as access to school and medical records, domestic violence intervention, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses, funeral and bereavement leave, the right to be party to securing education loans for your jointly raised children.

Each, and every, one of these things listed above can be accomplished without hijacking a religious ordinance called "marriage".

[Kawazu]

Each, and every, one of these things listed above can be accomplished without hijacking a religious ordinance called "marriage".

Howdy,

Marriage ceased to be a religious ordinance when it was hijacked by the government institution called a, "marriage license". Now, insofar as the State is concerned, marriage is a contract between the government and the couple.

Regards,

Kawazu

[cofchristcousin]

Each, and every, one of these things listed above can be accomplished without hijacking a religious ordinance called "marriage".

Right. I wouldn't come to your church for an ordinance to obtain these benefits and responsibilities. They come with the civil contract called Marriage. It is different from the ordinance of marriage.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Right. I wouldn't come to your church for an ordinance to obtain these benefits and responsibilities. They come with the civil contract called Marriage. It is different from the ordinance of marriage.

Are you in favor of legalizing plural marriages?

[Kawazu]

Right. I wouldn't come to your church for an ordinance to obtain these benefits and responsibilities. They come with the civil contract called Marriage. It is different from the ordinance of marriage.

Howdy,

What if--instead of having something like marriage licenses--all couples desiring State benefits and restrictions filed "Form 511-B." Form 511-B would include a long list of contractual obligations outlined by the State. (Legislative bodies could sort out the workings.)

Religious marriage ceremonies would be separately carried out, if wanted, by any willing clergy-member.

How do you see a situation like that unfolding?

Regards,

Kawazu

Edited August 22, 2009 by Kawazu

[cofchristcousin]

Howdy,

What if--instead of having something like marriage licenses--all couples desiring State benefits and restrictions filed "Form 511-B." Form 511-B would include a long list of contractual obligations outlined by the State. (Legislative bodies could sort out the workings.)

Religious marriage ceremonies would be separately carried out, if wanted, by any willing clergy-member.

How do you see a situation like that unfolding?

Regards,

Kawazu

That would be my preference, but that boat is sailing. 6 states already have legal marriage and more to come. I will vote for either all marriage or all unions, whichever comes to my ballot box first.

[cofchristcousin]

Are you in favor of legalizing plural marriages?

I don't have a solid opinion on that. I believe these marriages are generally exploitive of women and children, but I don't know how that plays out constitutionally. These marriages do not fit into the same marriage contract as 2 party marriages. I don't know if a standardized contract could be crafted that would be acceptable to different colonies of polygamists. It has to be considered on it's own merit which I am willing to do when the time comes.