Church attitude towards Gays.


circusboy01
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'll toss this out there Traveler. In an ideal system, there would be absolutely no benefit to gay marriage. A broken system, not unlike the rape case you mentioned, introduces areas where gay marriage can be beneficial. I know a 4 year old girl who was the result of a young teenager raped by her step-father. This family was producing children (meeting your criterion for societal growth), but in most other respects they were not contributing members of society. Their quality of child rearing was such that the neutral-to-negative impact they had was getting passed on to the next generation, with an increase. The State decided that the child deserved a better home.

I admittedly don't know the stats on the ratio of parents willing to adopt compared to the number of children available; assuming the adoption rate is low on account of a lack of adopters, increasing the number of stable, committed marriages will increase that pool. I've heard some conflicting reports about the child rearing abilities of gay couples. I've heard of some that rate them the same as single-parent households, while just this week I heard a report that said they rate the same as traditional couples.

Gay couples are already permitted to adopt. They do not independently increase society's numbers, but they can increase society's quality. Gay marriage adds stability to this group, increasing their effectiveness.

Very interesting viewpoint. I am still against gay marriage, but I believe you have brought on a new light to this dimmed debate. And I shall be watching from afar :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 324
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll toss this out there Traveler. In an ideal system, there would be absolutely no benefit to gay marriage. A broken system, not unlike the rape case you mentioned, introduces areas where gay marriage can be beneficial. I know a 4 year old girl who was the result of a young teenager raped by her step-father. This family was producing children (meeting your criterion for societal growth), but in most other respects they were not contributing members of society. Their quality of child rearing was such that the neutral-to-negative impact they had was getting passed on to the next generation, with an increase. The State decided that the child deserved a better home.

I admittedly don't know the stats on the ratio of parents willing to adopt compared to the number of children available; assuming the adoption rate is low on account of a lack of adopters, increasing the number of stable, committed marriages will increase that pool. I've heard some conflicting reports about the child rearing abilities of gay couples. I've heard of some that rate them the same as single-parent households, while just this week I heard a report that said they rate the same as traditional couples.

Gay couples are already permitted to adopt. They do not independently increase society's numbers, but they can increase society's quality. Gay marriage adds stability to this group, increasing their effectiveness.

There are some gay individuals who without a doubt would be better parents than some straight individuals. There are without a doubt some gay couples who would be more dedicated to the children they aquire than some natural straight parents. So to try to apply statistics to this seems useless. Parenting skill is highly individual depending on the personality and experience of each person. The generalizations and claims coming from certain organizations saying "they rate the same as traditional couples" really aren't relevant (or believable, in my opinion) what we should be focusing on.

Since this is an LDS forum and supposedly we are to be expressing LDS doctrine and beliefs, what we should be looking at is what we believe our Heavenly Father's view is on this issue. That is that children do best and deserve to have two parents, one from each gender wherever possible. To intentionally deny a parent of one gender in the home (as would be the case in a same gender marriage or union) goes directly against His plan. And gay parents living together are in direct opposition to the law of chastity.

The ideal scenario of course would be that those hetero parents (sealed in the temple) and who choose to have or adopt children, be completely dedicated to their families and to raising them in light of the gospel, teaching, loving, providing a positive example to them daily. This is an ideal that I believe is reachable. But there are all levels of ability and desire, even within LDS members to reach this level of successful parenting. So no, this ideal isn't always reached. But (again stats are not terribly useful) my guess is that a good percentage of families within the church- at least half or more are trying to raise families this way.

So if we're aiming for the ideal, there is no place for gay couples in our Heavenly Father's plan.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will begin this post by first apologizing to the forum. I greatly regret my inability to communicate what ought to be very simple straight forward concepts. I am sorry that those reading my post must deal with my convoluted manner of organizing thoughts. But most of all I apologize for my apparent non-carrying logic that puts logic and truth before emotions, feelings and personal desires. I apologize for appearing that I do not really care about actual living people trying to figure out how to deal with a mortal existence. It is my great failing and part of my damaged brain (clinical reality) that for something to be logical or to have logic - that it must make sense - regardless of how badly we may or may not “want” it too.

One of the problems that seem to arise in generations is a result of changing views of history. What is a traditional marriage? or from the extension - what is a traditional family? In the late 1960’s there was an attempt to redefine how future generations would understand marriage. The change was called “No Fault Divorce”. The Prophet David O McKay warned that this new trend would someday result in a diminished view and understanding of marriage which if allowed to continue would result in a day when fewer marriages would survive than would end in divorce and that the day would come when the majority of children would be raised in homes without both of their parents. Critics of this LDS view point, scoffed at the prophesy and said that traditional marriage was far too strong, important and ingrained into society for such an obviously silly prophesy to ever come reality. It is also interesting that President McKay warned the saints that if this effort to redefine marriage was to take hold in society that the effects would eventually have such ill consequences that regardless of how the saints held to their values that they would suffer as well.

No fault divorce took effect in California on January 1, 1970. 42 years later we have so lost track of what a traditional marriage is before G-d and society that it is being suggested that the entire concept of traditional marriage is obsolete - has become so worthless that it is now believed (and even argued by many of the saints) that children are better off (or at least as well off) to believe that when they become parents that they should not think of themselves as any more fit to raise their own offspring than any other possibility that can be imagined. Why would anyone argue such a thing? - what does that really say of the person making such an argument as potentially good parents for their own children?

I am stunned that people would argue that because many biological parents are no more fit parents than people that by their very “nature” abhor a human physical relationship that result in children - to care for, raise and prepare the next generation to be parents themselves. How is this logical? Anything can be justified by saying it is better than something horrible. We can say that abusing children is better that feeding them to wild animals. Therefore we should allow children to be abuse rather than feed them to wild animals.

I would point out that traditional marriage is not just to hang with someone until someone or something better comes along. It is not a relationship to be enjoyed as long as it is fun and enjoyable you. Traditional marriage is at minimum - till death. A promise to love, cherish and honor through good times and bad times. Traditional marriage is not - till I am no longer “happy” with it. I would also point out that a marriage is not just a promise to one’s spouse - it is a promise to G-d. I would submit that someone disloyal to and disrespectful to the traditional marriage covenant is a greater threat to society than a terrorist.

Contrary to popular opinion - parenting is not finding a way to get children to adulthood without killing them - although I am often amazed that somehow all my children made it without me killing them - at least not even in some kind of effigy. I actually love my children and believe any reasonable person with average intelligence can learn to love their biological children as well. Thus the main role of parents is to raise children to honor “PARENTHOOD” so that they will not even think to be less than a parents to their own offspring. It is interesting at this point to again quote the prophet David O McKay when he said the greatest gift a father can give his child is to love their mother above all else. Contrary that does not mean loving your current wife - although it could mean that. But to be honest - something I think many refuse to see a forest for all the trees.

One last thought - there is concern that I have suggested that homosexuality logically could be more dangerous and detrimental to human society than heterosexual rape. Many things can be argued in the short term but cannot stand the “big picture” or the true test of time. I would submit that if one could review their own ancestry for just half of recorded history that somewhere in, say the last 3,000 years or so, that there is not one person living today that somewhere of their direct ancestors was a product of rape. I am not saying that rape is okay or that we should think to allow rape as an element of society that must be accepted by society - it should not be allowed. But stop and think. There is not a living person today that has anywhere in their ancestry an ancestor that was the result of a homosexual act. It just is not an element in the gene pool. Not in billions of years of evolution. Its existence must have some other origin. But the landscape of society today is such that to honestly suggest such a thing is the very definition of a homophobe.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you realize that when I say some gay parents would be better than hetero parents, I'm talking about individual parenting skills and know-how when dealing with kids. Some gays are excellent with kids and have superior parenting/nurturing/teaching kid skills. That's why it seems so disappointing to me that they allow themselves to indulge in their same gender attraction, thereby making themselves not fit to be the kind of parents our Father in Heaven has in mind. I believe He has given them the talents and gifts to pass along- to help develop excellent qualities to the next generation, but their "gayness" is hampering that effort. I think that is one reason why the adversay (I almost feel like it's "He who must not be named") is rejoicing in the rise of homosexuality. He wants to prevent goodness in the world from flourishing. He wants all mankind to be miserable like himself. By selfishly indugling in homosexuality, men and women, although they may be temporarily ennlivened by it, are going down a path to destruction not only of themselves but of what could be in the next generation of their offspring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some gay individuals who without a doubt would be better parents than some straight individuals. There are without a doubt some gay couples who would be more dedicated to the children they aquire than some natural straight parents. So to try to apply statistics to this seems useless. Parenting skill is highly individual depending on the personality and experience of each person. The generalizations and claims coming from certain organizations saying "they rate the same as traditional couples" really aren't relevant (or believable, in my opinion) what we should be focusing on.

Actually, this is the perfect reason to apply statistics. First we determine criteria on which to judge what "fit parenting" is. Then we try to isolate variables to see what factors contribute to it and what factors don't. Is it household income? Total number of children? Number of parents? Size of nuclear family? Gender of parents?

My limited experience with family science has unfortunately not exposed me to much hard science in most of the studies I've delved into (small sample sizes, difficulty in isolating variables, etc).

Traveler's initial post(s - he's posted his question several times, and I thought it odd no one challenged him) stated that there is a single criterion by which we can judge the value of homosexual relationships (without clarification, this included marriage, parenting, or any other aspect of such a union) and that is reproduction. By that criterion alone, I agree that homosexual relationships do not have any value in society, especially as parents. By that criterion alone, I agree that swingers, rapists, and adulterers are contributers to society. I just don't think that sole criterion should be used to judge societal value.

Since this is an LDS forum and supposedly we are to be expressing LDS doctrine and beliefs, what we should be looking at is what we believe our Heavenly Father's view is on this issue. That is that children do best and deserve to have two parents, one from each gender wherever possible. To intentionally deny a parent of one gender in the home (as would be the case in a same gender marriage or union) goes directly against His plan. And gay parents living together are in direct opposition to the law of chastity.

I respect this argument, but that's not the one I was challenging. I am specifically challenging an argument that is not based on religious convictions but on a general morality as defined by social good. If truth be told, I hope Traveler or others can properly rebut it, as it's been primary hole in my defense of traditional marriage for a number of years (and a reason I don't generally participate in these threads).

The ideal scenario of course would be that those hetero parents (sealed in the temple) and who choose to have or adopt children, be completely dedicated to their families and to raising them in light of the gospel, teaching, loving, providing a positive example to them daily. This is an ideal that I believe is reachable. But there are all levels of ability and desire, even within LDS members to reach this level of successful parenting. So no, this ideal isn't always reached. But (again stats are not terribly useful) my guess is that a good percentage of families within the church- at least half or more are trying to raise families this way.

I have some thoughts on the ideal I'll come back to.

I will begin this post by first apologizing to the forum. I greatly regret my inability to communicate what ought to be very simple straight forward concepts. I am sorry that those reading my post must deal with my convoluted manner of organizing thoughts. But most of all I apologize for my apparent non-carrying logic that puts logic and truth before emotions, feelings and personal desires. I apologize for appearing that I do not really care about actual living people trying to figure out how to deal with a mortal existence. It is my great failing and part of my damaged brain (clinical reality) that for something to be logical or to have logic - that it must make sense - regardless of how badly we may or may not “want” it too.

No need to apologize to me. I wasn't offended in the least.

One of the problems that seem to arise in generations is a result of changing views of history. What is a traditional marriage? or from the extension - what is a traditional family? In the late 1960’s there was an attempt to redefine how future generations would understand marriage. The change was called “No Fault Divorce”. The Prophet David O McKay warned that this new trend would someday result in a diminished view and understanding of marriage which if allowed to continue would result in a day when fewer marriages would survive than would end in divorce and that the day would come when the majority of children would be raised in homes without both of their parents. Critics of this LDS view point, scoffed at the prophesy and said that traditional marriage was far too strong, important and ingrained into society for such an obviously silly prophesy to ever come reality. It is also interesting that President McKay warned the saints that if this effort to redefine marriage was to take hold in society that the effects would eventually have such ill consequences that regardless of how the saints held to their values that they would suffer as well.

No fault divorce took effect in California on January 1, 1970. 42 years later we have so lost track of what a traditional marriage is before G-d and society that it is being suggested that the entire concept of traditional marriage is obsolete - has become so worthless that it is now believed (and even argued by many of the saints) that children are better off (or at least as well off) to believe that when they become parents that they should not think of themselves as any more fit to raise their own offspring than any other possibility that can be imagined. Why would anyone argue such a thing? - what does that really say of the person making such an argument as potentially good parents for their own children?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I certainly think that (all else being equal) there is a hierarchy of desirable parents. Apparently the State thinks so too, otherwise it would keep out of parenting and child distribution altogether. Fortunately, the State sets the bar so low that I can parent. Unfortunately, the State sets the bar so low that undesirables can parent as well. There's reasons for that, but I don't know that they're very relevant to this discussion.

I agree that there has been a moral decline in the value of marriage with a number of points contributing to that decline. It would be fair enough to say "thus far and no farther", but like I said before, we allow individuals to adopt with or without a spouse so we should do what we can to increase the quality of parenting from such. Gays are asking that we legalize gay marriage which will contribute, or an alternative I'm not hearing is we change our screening criteria so that only couples can adopt. Then we could bar gays from adopting (and marriage, because there would be even less benefit for it now) until it is proved that gay couples do no worse than straight couples at rearing children (they MUST do better than single parents).

I am stunned that people would argue that because many biological parents are no more fit parents than people that by their very “nature” abhor a human physical relationship that result in children - to care for, raise and prepare the next generation to be parents themselves. How is this logical? Anything can be justified by saying it is better than something horrible. We can say that abusing children is better that feeding them to wild animals. Therefore we should allow children to be abuse rather than feed them to wild animals.

Actually, we should do just that. Society tends to value a poor quality of life over no life, and so most states do not allow euthenasia. Similarly, the voice of Hope has convinced many states to favor life without parole over the death penalty. If there is absolutely no other choice but to use a child as shark chum or to use her as a medical guinea pig, I think most people would be abhored but resolve that it's for the best for her to grow up in a lab (actually, I think most people would start looking for an alternative immediately).

I would point out that traditional marriage is not just to hang with someone until someone or something better comes along. It is not a relationship to be enjoyed as long as it is fun and enjoyable you. Traditional marriage is at minimum - till death. A promise to love, cherish and honor through good times and bad times. Traditional marriage is not - till I am no longer “happy” with it. I would also point out that a marriage is not just a promise to one’s spouse - it is a promise to G-d. I would submit that someone disloyal to and disrespectful to the traditional marriage covenant is a greater threat to society than a terrorist.

Contrary to popular opinion - parenting is not finding a way to get children to adulthood without killing them - although I am often amazed that somehow all my children made it without me killing them - at least not even in some kind of effigy. I actually love my children and believe any reasonable person with average intelligence can learn to love their biological children as well. Thus the main role of parents is to raise children to honor “PARENTHOOD” so that they will not even think to be less than a parents to their own offspring. It is interesting at this point to again quote the prophet David O McKay when he said the greatest gift a father can give his child is to love their mother above all else. Contrary that does not mean loving your current wife - although it could mean that. But to be honest - something I think many refuse to see a forest for all the trees.

Personally, I agree. So let's talk about the ideal for a moment. Society should desire fit parents be the caretakers of children. But, sadly, we have children without fit parents, so what do we do with them? Well obviously we should try to give them ideal fit parents. What do we when we run out of the ideal? We could terminate them. Or we could give them less-than-ideal parents. So (all else being equal) what's the hierarchy of fit parents? Please sort this list from most desirable to least (all else being equal - this is, after all a discussion on homesexual parents and not, say, smokers, or liars, or whatnot). Feel free to mix and match for various levels of sub-optimal, as well as just including who is plain undesirable.

Type of relationship

  • Married in a temple
  • Married in a church
  • Married civily
  • Living together in a commited relationship
  • In a steady relationship
  • None (single, or perhaps an orphanage?)

Relationship to child

  • Biological father and Biological mother
  • Biological father
  • Biological mother
  • Adoptive parent(s)
  • None

Couple variations

  • Man and woman
  • Man and multiple women (polygyny or open adultery)
  • Multiple men and woman (polyandry or open adultery)
  • Multiple men and multiple women (swingers or open marriage)
  • Man and man
  • Woman and woman
  • Single man
  • Single woman
  • None

One last thought - there is concern that I have suggested that homosexuality logically could be more dangerous and detrimental to human society than heterosexual rape. Many things can be argued in the short term but cannot stand the “big picture” or the true test of time. I would submit that if one could review their own ancestry for just half of recorded history that somewhere in, say the last 3,000 years or so, that there is not one person living today that somewhere of their direct ancestors was a product of rape. I am not saying that rape is okay or that we should think to allow rape as an element of society that must be accepted by society - it should not be allowed. But stop and think. There is not a living person today that has anywhere in their ancestry an ancestor that was the result of a homosexual act. It just is not an element in the gene pool. Not in billions of years of evolution. Its existence must have some other origin. But the landscape of society today is such that to honestly suggest such a thing is the very definition of a homophobe.

The Traveler

Again, the rape argument isn't a problem for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this is the perfect reason to apply statistics. First we determine criteria on which to judge what "fit parenting" is. Then we try to isolate variables to see what factors contribute to it and what factors don't. Is it household income? Total number of children? Number of parents? Size of nuclear family? Gender of parents?

Type of relationship

  • Married in a temple
  • Married in a church
  • Married civily
  • Living together in a commited relationship
  • In a steady relationship
  • None (single, or perhaps an orphanage?)

Relationship to child

  • Biological father and Biological mother
  • Biological father
  • Biological mother
  • Adoptive parent(s)
  • None

Couple variations

  • Man and woman
  • Man and multiple women (polygyny or open adultery)
  • Multiple men and woman (polyandry or open adultery)
  • Multiple men and multiple women (swingers or open marriage)
  • Man and man
  • Woman and woman
  • Single man
  • Single woman
  • None

I still don't agree with generalized stats being worth anything in this case. One "scientific" study of children of lesbian parents only asked their mothers how the kids were doing. Duh! Not terribly objective method. And that's the problem. The WHOLE notion of fit parenting is subjective. It always will be. What is great discipline to one person will be not great discipline to another. What is a "happy thriving child" to one person may not be to another. That's why I laugh at the APA's statement that gays and lesbians make equally good parents as straights. It's impossible to measure every aspect of the child's personality and life to find out how gay or lesbian parents might be affecting them. And I would bet that some of the most eternally important questions are never even asked. The real effect is buried under societal norms.

So from there where do we go? The the Gospel of Jesus Christ- specifically to the direction from modern day prophets who have the latest info from our Father in Heaven. If HE who knows ALL says it's best for children to have a mother and father of opposite genders, I'm going to trust that. He obviously knows more than the APA.

And for your other little exercise-

List 1- that order would be my vote

List 2- Biological mother and father together is tops (when genuinely attempting to parent the way Heavenly Father wants us to- the ideal). Adoptive, bio father alone or bio mother alone can't be put in any particular order because there are too many variables. Some adoptives would be better than single bios.

List 3- Man and woman

Single man or single woman

Totally scratch the open marriage thing unless it's during a time when God has

commanded polygamy

Homosexuals

None (this is interchangeable with homosexuals depending on the conditions of the

orphanage)

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biological father is not more desirable than biological mother. Case by case issue. Nor is man/man better than woman/woman. You may hate me for saying but I would rather have two women raise a child than two men.

Why would anyone hate you for that? I think that's one of the problems in today's world, people feel the need to hate those they disagree with.

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, but I would take even that on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the men and women involved, two men might be better than two women, in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try to be short - since most of my posts have been long. In mathematics we have positive (Real) numbers and we have negative (Real) numbers and a special case (0) which is neither. I guess that we can argue, biased on the principle of trichotomy in real numbers some are more negative (less than) and some are more positive (greater than). But by definition negative numbers always decrease the aggregate value and positive numbers will always increase the aggregate value.

In essence homosexuality as a standalone entity is negative that decreases that aggregate value (unless someone can provide at least one positive and proven necessary aspect). I guess that we can create a list of things that provide benefit and those that do not - add everything up and sell off children to the highest bidder. I understand that that there are worse things than homosexuality. I understand that it is possible that there are parents, so bad at being parents, that a child is better off growing up with homosexuality as the preferred relationship for a marriage.

Logically we should do all we can, for good - especially that which is good and a benefit to children. Realistically we are all flawed and fall short of what ought to be. And therefore we all should we willing to confess our faults. But let us never attempt to cover up a fault or try to pass it off as something that is desirable and not a fault. We should never call light darkness or darkness light. Never call that which is good evil or that which is evil good. Never say something is a benefit when it is not. Homosexuality should not, cannot, and will never be considered a benefit - unless or until someone can demonstrate that it is. Until then or when; I submit in all logic and reason that we remember and stand for that which is right and of benefit. Choosing a “lesser evil” is never a good thing - just something not as bad as something else that is worse. Thus choosing a lesser evil is not an expression of will or an expression of liberty and freedom - but the compromise of the unjust and captive.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biological father is not more desirable than biological mother. Case by case issue. Nor is man/man better than woman/woman. You may hate me for saying but I would rather have two women raise a child than two men.

Hmmmmm - I am thinking two kind, caring and intelligent rocks would be better? Or at least as good. (Again I apologize for my sarcasm)

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why stop at two? And why be biased against, say, a human / non-human pair?

I included the option of multiple parents. Where do you think that falls in moral parenting?

I didn't include any sort of non-human parents, because historically there have been only 3 children raised by wolves - Romulus, Remus, and yourself.

I see where you're going with the whole slippery slope argument; by the same logic we should go down that route. If allowing gay marriage means we also license beastial marriage, then the same logic dictates that the same degradations against marriage in the past inevitibly means we must permit gay marriage.

I would find this argument more compelling if "protecting marriage" meant not just preventing homosexual unions, but also included reversing some of the decisions that got us down this slippery slope.

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try to be short - since most of my posts have been long. In mathematics we have positive (Real) numbers and we have negative (Real) numbers and a special case (0) which is neither. I guess that we can argue, biased on the principle of trichotomy in real numbers some are more negative (less than) and some are more positive (greater than). But by definition negative numbers always decrease the aggregate value and positive numbers will always increase the aggregate value.

In essence homosexuality as a standalone entity is negative that decreases that aggregate value (unless someone can provide at least one positive and proven necessary aspect).

I thought I just did - you know the whole parents thing, unless you legitimately believe 2 rocks would be better.

I guess that we can create a list of things that provide benefit and those that do not - add everything up and sell off children to the highest bidder. I understand that that there are worse things than homosexuality. I understand that it is possible that there are parents, so bad at being parents, that a child is better off growing up with homosexuality as the preferred relationship for a marriage.

Ah good, then you do see that there is at least one positive aspect. I'm lazy, so I'll leave the "proven" part to SoulSearcher and others that are better versed in studies. Like I said before, my brief introduction to the social sciences found them woefully lacking in rigor. I'm just glad to see that I got you half way there.

My real point though is that although homosexuality may be a vice (even in parenting), there are worse vices that are knowingly selected in parents. If we are serious about stopping gay marriage (or even fighting support of homosexual relationships), then we need to clean up our back yard as well. We're complaining that we have to bail out the boat without plugging the leak. I can sympathize better with marriage defenders fighting gay marriage if they also fight to reverse No Fault Divorce, popularizing adultery, and the other decisions that have led us this far.

Logically we should do all we can, for good - especially that which is good and a benefit to children. Realistically we are all flawed and fall short of what ought to be. And therefore we all should we willing to confess our faults. But let us never attempt to cover up a fault or try to pass it off as something that is desirable and not a fault. We should never call light darkness or darkness light. Never call that which is good evil or that which is evil good. Never say something is a benefit when it is not. Homosexuality should not, cannot, and will never be considered a benefit - unless or until someone can demonstrate that it is. Until then or when; I submit in all logic and reason that we remember and stand for that which is right and of benefit. Choosing a “lesser evil” is never a good thing - just something not as bad as something else that is worse. Thus choosing a lesser evil is not an expression of will or an expression of liberty and freedom - but the compromise of the unjust and captive.

The Traveler

Aaaaaaaaannnnnddd now you've moved your argument. You've now taken us from "Give me one positive - just ONE" to "homosex is immoral". I don't disagree with this new argument, but it's one that's been argued back and forth in these fora several times. I'm not very interested in rehashing those arguments again. I leave it to the curious reader to review the many threads. I don't mind discussing the "find a positive" aspect though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I just did - you know the whole parents thing, unless you legitimately believe 2 rocks would be better.

Ah good, then you do see that there is at least one positive aspect. I'm lazy, so I'll leave the "proven" part to SoulSearcher and others that are better versed in studies. Like I said before, my brief introduction to the social sciences found them woefully lacking in rigor. I'm just glad to see that I got you half way there.

My real point though is that although homosexuality may be a vice (even in parenting), there are worse vices that are knowingly selected in parents. If we are serious about stopping gay marriage (or even fighting support of homosexual relationships), then we need to clean up our back yard as well. We're complaining that we have to bail out the boat without plugging the leak. I can sympathize better with marriage defenders fighting gay marriage if they also fight to reverse No Fault Divorce, popularizing adultery, and the other decisions that have led us this far.

Aaaaaaaaannnnnddd now you've moved your argument. You've now taken us from "Give me one positive - just ONE" to "homosex is immoral". I don't disagree with this new argument, but it's one that's been argued back and forth in these fora several times. I'm not very interested in rehashing those arguments again. I leave it to the curious reader to review the many threads. I don't mind discussing the "find a positive" aspect though.

I am not sure what you are getting at here? It appears to me that you are complaining about someone being punished for stealing a car and their defense is that the person that owned the car was mean to them? Therefore until we are willing to do something about meanness that we have no right or purpose in opposing and punishing the auto theft.

This thread is about the LDS opposition to gay marriage. It is not about other issues – although in some cases some other issues can be generally related to the issue at hand; your diversion is a red herring. A proponent of No Fault Divorce, according to you logic, can say that it is unfair for them to be condemned until after we clean up adultery in our society. Likewise someone that commits adultery could argue that until No Fault Divorce is cleaned up we should leave them alone in their adultery.

Previously I warned concerning the logic of selecting the lesser of two evils – the justification, for example, of abusing children because it is better than feeding them to wild animals. Anything can be justified by this method because in essence we can always find something worse.

The other thing very wrong – I believe – in your argument is the false insinuation that because the LDS are losing battles against No Fault Divorce and the popularization of adultery; that they should completely give up with concerning any and all opposition to homosexual marriage as well. That is like saying until the government can stop terrorism they should suspend social security payments – because stopping terrorism is more important and until we clean that up we have no right helping the elderly (that will probably die in a few years anyway).

What I have attempted to show and express is that support for and public encouragement of homosexuality is not helpful or beneficial to society. I understand that there are things worse for society – but just because something is worse – that is no excuse at all to attempt to force society to suffer anything else or in addition that cannot be shown to be beneficial. There is no reason to support something that is not beneficial – we may be forced to go along with things that do not benefit society for a time (forcing society to accept things not beneficial is often called totalitarianism – among other things and sometimes we must endure such injustice) but there is no logic or reason to support something that is not beneficial –ever! I do not see any logic or intelligence for any open support for something that is not beneficial to the society of man. From a religious or even humane stand point, I see this as the very difference between good and evil – just and unjust – right and wrong. I intend to be very clear which of these I support and which I oppose.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

charity..... apparently a lot harder for ppl to apply than it is to talk about it.

I know of a child that was kicked around in the foster system. Finally at around 6 or so yrs of age they got "chosen" for a family. A family with 2 mommies. Put yourself in those shoes. You finally have a home when none would give you one and someone says you would be better off being raised by 2 rocks than the 2 women who love you and would give their lives for you. Being raised in the system is probably the equivalent of being raised by 2 rocks. You know both of the options very clearly, more clearly than those that make such comments.... how do you feel hearing that? Would hearing such comments embody feeling the love of christ? Are you ever under any circumstance going to care about the testimony of those that make such comments? How would you ever embrace the teachings of christ knowing that his "followers" think that the women you love and gave you a home when no one was there for you are lower than 2 rocks (or find such a comparison funny or acceptable)? I'm sorry I don't see charity in such an attitude, it makes my stomach turn actually.

I know this was addressed several pages back but oh well..... unless you have been raped you have no grounds to speak as to the "value" of it. If your stomach turns more at the thought of 2 ppl having consensual loving sexual relations in the privacy of their home more than it does at the idea of someone being raped then you have far greater problems at the judgment bar than the couple you condemn. Most of the ppl being condemned have not made covenants nor received a testimony of christ and how to live. Those condemning them often times have that testimony and made those covenants. Let's not forget that at the end of the day we are all judged on what we did with what we knew. Did you show charity when you made the covenant to take christ's name upon you? Are others brought closer to christ simply because they knew you?

The saddest thing about all this for me is that I do have a testimony of the church, I do believe sexual sin is wrong. However, the things that "tempt" me most into supporting the "gay agenda" are the very ppl that are opposing it. I am embarrassed at the idea that anyone would read this and think that lds (by default I) believe that rape or 2 rocks are a better situation than 2 ppl that are just trying to make it in the world together. If I'm embarrassed by this I can only imagine how christ feels about what has been done with his name.

It's all just sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless you have been raped you have no grounds to speak as to the "value" of it.

I think Traveler explained his reasoning very thoroughly. I do not understand why people keep harping on this point. Traveler's statement may have been overreaching, but what he was trying to say was clear (and if it wasn't, he went ahead and clarified it): Heterosexual coitus has intrinsic value in that it potentially creates human life, even under such horrendous circumstances as forcible rape. No amount or version of homosex can possibly make such a claim.

Now, you may argue that this point is irrelevant. Fine. Go ahead and so argue. But that was Traveler's point, and however distasteful you may have found his extreme example, the point stands. It has nothing to do with whether rape is acceptable or good or tolerable or secretly allowed or any other thing of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

charity..... apparently a lot harder for ppl to apply than it is to talk about it.

I know of a child that was kicked around in the foster system. Finally at around 6 or so yrs of age they got "chosen" for a family. A family with 2 mommies. Put yourself in those shoes. You finally have a home when none would give you one and someone says you would be better off being raised by 2 rocks than the 2 women who love you and would give their lives for you. Being raised in the system is probably the equivalent of being raised by 2 rocks. You know both of the options very clearly, more clearly than those that make such comments.... how do you feel hearing that? Would hearing such comments embody feeling the love of christ? Are you ever under any circumstance going to care about the testimony of those that make such comments? How would you ever embrace the teachings of christ knowing that his "followers" think that the women you love and gave you a home when no one was there for you are lower than 2 rocks (or find such a comparison funny or acceptable)? I'm sorry I don't see charity in such an attitude, it makes my stomach turn actually.

I know this was addressed several pages back but oh well..... unless you have been raped you have no grounds to speak as to the "value" of it. If your stomach turns more at the thought of 2 ppl having consensual loving sexual relations in the privacy of their home more than it does at the idea of someone being raped then you have far greater problems at the judgment bar than the couple you condemn. Most of the ppl being condemned have not made covenants nor received a testimony of christ and how to live. Those condemning them often times have that testimony and made those covenants. Let's not forget that at the end of the day we are all judged on what we did with what we knew. Did you show charity when you made the covenant to take christ's name upon you? Are others brought closer to christ simply because they knew you?

The saddest thing about all this for me is that I do have a testimony of the church, I do believe sexual sin is wrong. However, the things that "tempt" me most into supporting the "gay agenda" are the very ppl that are opposing it. I am embarrassed at the idea that anyone would read this and think that lds (by default I) believe that rape or 2 rocks are a better situation than 2 ppl that are just trying to make it in the world together. If I'm embarrassed by this I can only imagine how christ feels about what has been done with his name.

It's all just sad.

You completely misread and have misrepresented my comments. I said two very intelligent, loving, kind and caring rocks –implying that such rock are willing to intelligently forgo personal pleasures, personal attractions and desires for the sake and betterment of children. For sure that is better than feeding children to wild animals (which has happened several times throughout history). How do you think intelligent caring and kind rocks feel about your comments?

My point, Gwen, is this – if you think that the best that human society has to offer is an environment where children are taught, through demonstration of best available example; that the optimum benefit for human society to endure for all generations is the fostering of same sex parents then I agree it is a good idea to support and encourage same sex relationships especially over intelligent, loving, kind and caring biological, “married before G-d”, parents.

I have also stated that from time to time it is necessary to endure injustice and make the best of it – and in my mind and opinion any child forced to endure being raised in a household without the loving kindness of both biological parents is suffering an injustice. And I do agree that if we are going to force children to suffer injustices that we try to limit as much as possible that injustice – but I do feel very strongly that no one ever has the right to call something injustice – just; or the desired goal of justice. That in my opinion is the saddest of all opinions.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Gwen, does the child have any chance of being taught the gospel? Perhaps they come across it later in life. How do they then reconcile the fact that the two people who loved them and that hopefully they loved the most were living in sin? Like Travelor said, parents are supposed to teach by example. Two lesbians or two gays may be the most Christlike individuals, full of love and charity for all, but they are still living in sin. Wouldn't you agree that it would be near impossible for them to teach the law of chastity to their children? UNLESS homosexual marriage becomes legal through out the country and so by the laws of the land they aren't breaking the law of chastity. BUT they would still be breaking God's laws. What a tangled mess that child would have to figure out.

Hypothetical- Is it better to be raised by two homosexuals outside of the gospel example or in foster homes or an orphanage where there is still the chance of learning about Heavenly Father's plan for families?

One more thing, How do you figure Christ would be embarrassed by our trying to proclaim his gospel on these threads? Aren't we supposed to be a light on a hill?

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a child learns love, charity, acceptance, etc from their gay parents. They learn from "followers of christ" that they were better off in the foster system and never having a family just because it was 2 women. Do you really think it's the attitude of the parents that is keeping them from being open to learning about our beliefs?

As for the law of chastity what they can teach is that sex is special, you don't give it away or sell it, you save it for that someone you want to have a family with, even for marriage.

This couple is married, to my knowledge they are faithful and they respect each other. They can set an amazing example of what a relationship should be. They can set the foundation for this child to grow up into a well adjusted, honest, moral adult. A foundation that would leave them open to hearing the testimony of the gospel .... if those sharing that testimony haven't shot themselves in the foot by being uncharitable.

Will it be easy to accept the gospel knowing your mothers have an eternal issue? probably not. No easier than it was for me when most of my family left the church. Yes it hurts to feel like you are losing a loved one. However, if you truly understand the gospel there is no reason to mourn, there is still hope.

Yes parents are supposed to teach by example and teach good things. This isn't a perfect world. I would suggest that it wouldn't be any harder for this child to accept the gospel than the kid that grows up with mom and dad who argue and fight all the time, cheat on each other, substance abuse etc. Or the child that grows up in the church abused by the priesthood holder of the home (this one I know for a fact prevents acceptance of the gospel).

Just like everything else in this life we are judged by what we did with what we knew. I would say the gay couple that teaches christ-like values in every other aspect of their life is better off at the judgment bar than the unrighteous dominion priesthood holder that drives his children away from the church.

I don't think christ would be embarrassed by proclaiming his word. It's the judging and vilifying those that don't believe as you do, those that have not received a testimony, those that struggle with a very powerful temptation. Look at christ's example. The only sinners he dealt harshly with were the money changers in the temple. The ones who knew better and still defiled his house. Everyone else (even those despised by society) he had compassion and charity toward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Gwen, does the child have any chance of being taught the gospel? Perhaps they come across it later in life. How do they then reconcile the fact that the two people who loved them and that hopefully they loved the most were living in sin? Like Travelor said, parents are supposed to teach by example. Two lesbians or two gays may be the most Christlike individuals, full of love and charity for all, but they are still living in sin. Wouldn't you agree that it would be near impossible for them to teach the law of chastity to their children? UNLESS homosexual marriage becomes legal through out the country and so by the laws of the land they aren't breaking the law of chastity. BUT they would still be breaking God's laws. What a tangled mess that child would have to figure out.

Hypothetical- Is it better to be raised by two homosexuals outside of the gospel example or in foster homes or an orphanage where there is still the chance of learning about Heavenly Father's plan for families?

One more thing, How do you figure Christ would be embarrassed by our trying to proclaim his gospel on these threads? Aren't we supposed to be a light on a hill?

Perhaps if we took a more loving approach to our proclamations that such relations are sins, it wouldn't be such an issue? There are converts who come from families of chain smokers and social drinkers, and yet I don't hear people saying foster children would be better off being raised by rocks than by a couple who smokes or has a glass of wine with dinner because it might inhibit their ability to later accept the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical- Is it better to be raised by two homosexuals outside of the gospel example or in foster homes or an orphanage where there is still the chance of learning about Heavenly Father's plan for families?

Not a fan of gay couple parenting...personally. That said, the children will hear the Gospel proclaimed whether during their mortal probation or in the Spirit world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if we took a more loving approach to our proclamations that such relations are sins, it wouldn't be such an issue? There are converts who come from families of chain smokers and social drinkers, and yet I don't hear people saying foster children would be better off being raised by rocks than by a couple who smokes or has a glass of wine with dinner because it might inhibit their ability to later accept the gospel.

Give me an example of a more loving proclamation. Not sure it could get any more loving or straightforward than what we have heard from our prophet and other general authorities.

Smoking and drinking are behaviors that can be eliminated if thefamily members were to learn about and accept the gospel. A gay couple would have to separate or get divorced. What are the chances of that happening? That's a different and much more complicated and emotional scenario that giving up smoking and drinking.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share