Sign in to follow this  
Emsters85

Attending a Gay Wedding

Recommended Posts

I don't know if that directly relates.  There's a major difference between bringing a child back to health from a poor choice and celebrating a poor choice.

 

I'm thinking of my mother.  If I commit suicide and fail, she'll be at my bedside nursing me back to health.  The minute I wake up, she'll be yelling at me for being stupid as she tends to my wounds.  Yep, that would be my mother.  I love that woman to pieces.

 

Just because they call it a celebration doesn't me that you are celebrating the event.

 

And in the analogy you are not nursing them back to health...  You are watching them die because there is nothing you can do to save them from there own choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets run this analogy...  

 

Lets say your child lies dying in the hospital due to an attempt at suicide.  Would you consider showing up at their bedside a a sign of support for their actions and choices that lead to their suicide?  Or would you be there because in spite of all their poor choices because when it comes right down to it this is a time you need to be there.  Both for yourself and for them?

 

This analogy does not work. Compare the child dying in the hospital to a broken, shattered, life that someone has because of their poor choices (perhaps including a gay wedding) and giving said person comfort, support, and healing would be more accurate.

 

The literal suicide example would be more akin to having a child invite you to come along and watch them as they actually put the knife to their wrist - and as you watch, smile kindly, show your support, and don't do anything to show disapproval or to try and stop them. Because, after all, that's what true love is anyhow. Right? Right!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Just because they call it a celebration doesn't me that you are celebrating the event.

 

What are you there for then?  If you're not celebrating, then what's the difference between being there and not being there?

 

 

And in the analogy you are not nursing them back to health...  You are watching them die because there is nothing you can do to save them from there own choices. 

 

That doesn't make sense.  My mother is not going to just watch me die.  She's going to rush me to the hospital and harass some doctors until somebody is doing something that may save me.  She's not gonna sit there and say, oh poor baby... That's not my mother.  She's going to be muttering the whole time of my own stupidity or beating herself up for not teaching me better... and then when I do die, she'll be sending more eggs to the Carmelite Sisters to pray for me continuously to appeal to God to have mercy on my soul as I roast in purgatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets run this analogy...

Lets say your child lies dying in the hospital due to an attempt at suicide. Would you consider showing up at their bedside a a sign of support for their actions and choices that lead to their suicide? Or would you be there because in spite of all their poor choices because when it comes right down to it this is a time you need to be there. Both for yourself and for them?

Like Anatess and TFP say, I think the situations are distinguishable. We are under scriptural injunction to "mourn with those who mourn"; and I think that's also a sound principle of family life. But that's very different than being expected to show up to a son's Russian Roulette party and making a point of "being civil" as the loved one laughingly pulls the trigger again and again. (I suppose I could attend and make my mourning--even my opposition--abundantly clear; but that would make me quite an obnoxious guest.)

Again--kudos to those who have the spiritual fortitude to sit through that sort of thing; but I don't think that's me.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Anatess and TFP say, I think the situations are distinguishable. We are under scriptural injunction to "mourn with those who mourn"; and I think that's also a sound principle of family life. But that's very different than being expected to show up to a son's Russian Roulette party and making a point of "being civil" as the loved one laughingly pulls the trigger again and again. (I suppose I could attend and make my mourning--even my opposition--abundantly clear; but that would make me quite an obnoxious guest.)

Again--kudos to those who have the spiritual fortitude to sit through that sort of thing; but I don't think that's me.

 

To be fair...in the analogy the gay wedding itself would only be a symbol/celebration of the suicide that's already occurred, rather than the actual suicide. Being gay married or not isn't really the sin.

 

Of course, here, the analogy fails. The suicide, if already committed, is done and there's no coming back from it. The person who has decided to embrace the gay lifestyle can still come back. Hence the potential valid idea that one might indeed be led by the spirit to attend something of this sort. I can respect that.

 

On principle, however, I am on the side of no way, no how. I'm not helping you celebrate your spiritual suicide. I'm not attending, supporting, or being involved in said celebration in any manner.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that the "suicide" analogy in general has limits. However, for the sake of discussion: I think the wedding represents more than a mere celebration. It entails the formation of legal ties, and the solidification of emotional ties, that will have to be dissolved as part of any repentance process; and IMHO represents an outright rejection of (as opposed to a mere inability to obtain) conventional matrimony that will not be taken lightly at the final judgment when one's exaltation is on the line.

Broadly speaking, in theological terms there is affirmative good in a straight marriage and affirmative harm in a gay one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a talk I find relevant to the OP: "Love and Law"

 

Some highlights from what Elder Oaks shared (read the whole thing. I think it goes hand in hand with his last talk about disagreeing without being disagreeable):

 

 

If parents have a wayward child—such as a teenager indulging in alcohol or drugs—they face a serious question. Does parental love require that these substances or their consumption be allowed in the home, or do the requirements of civil law or the seriousness of the conduct or the interests of other children in the home require that this be forbidden?

 

To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored? I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate.

 

Where do parents draw the line? That is a matter for parental wisdom, guided by the inspiration of the Lord. There is no area of parental action that is more needful of heavenly guidance or more likely to receive it than the decisions of parents in raising their children and governing their families. This is the work of eternity.

 

As parents grapple with these problems, they should remember the Lord’s teaching that we leave the ninety and nine and go out into the wilderness to rescue the lost sheep.11 President Thomas S. Monson has called for a loving crusade to rescue our brothers and sisters who are wandering in the wilderness of apathy or ignorance.12 These teachings require continued loving concern, which surely requires continued loving associations.

 

Parents should also remember the Lord’s frequent teaching that “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (Hebrews 12:6).13 In his conference talk on tolerance and love, Elder Russell M. Nelson taught that “real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation—not acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior.”14

 

Wherever the line is drawn between the power of love and the force of law, the breaking of commandments is certain to impact loving family relationships. Jesus taught:

 

“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

 

“For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

 

“The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother” (Luke 12:51–53).

 

This sobering teaching reminds us that when family members are not united in striving to keep the commandments of God, there will be divisions. We do all that we can to avoid impairing loving relationships, but sometimes it happens after all we can do.

In the midst of such stress, we must endure the reality that the straying of our loved ones will detract from our happiness, but it should not detract from our love for one another or our patient efforts to be united in understanding God’s love and God’s laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

I've gone to a few. For me, I think "I'm not going to ask you to live my standards, so knock yourself out. We are still friends." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What I really don't understand is the idea that not attending a wedding due to religious conviction is considered "not loving".  Especially when these people are interacting just fine in any other day of the year.

 

When a Mormon couple gets married in the temple and their parents are not LDS members... would they be considered "not loving" if they don't reduce their wedding to a for-earth-only ceremony so their parents can attend?

 

I just don't get this reasoning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a Mormon couple gets married in the temple and their parents are not LDS members... would they be considered "not loving" if they don't reduce their wedding to a for-earth-only ceremony so their parents can attend?

 

This; of all the places I wouldn't expect to see someone say it's not right to skip somebody's wedding...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that the "suicide" analogy in general has limits. However, for the sake of discussion: I think the wedding represents more than a mere celebration. It entails the formation of legal ties, and the solidification of emotional ties, that will have to be dissolved as part of any repentance process; and IMHO represents an outright rejection of (as opposed to a mere inability to obtain) conventional matrimony that will not be taken lightly at the final judgment when one's exaltation is on the line.

Broadly speaking, in theological terms there is affirmative good in a straight marriage and affirmative harm in a gay one.

 

 

It was your analogy to begin with (I just pushed it and it broke) so if you wish to retract it that does not bother me.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really don't understand is the idea that not attending a wedding due to religious conviction is considered "not loving".  Especially when these people are interacting just fine in any other day of the year.

 

When a Mormon couple gets married in the temple and their parents are not LDS members... would they be considered "not loving" if they don't reduce their wedding to a for-earth-only ceremony so their parents can attend?

 

I just don't get this reasoning...

 

Its the difference between  "Not loving"  and coming across as "Not loving" or being seen as "Not Loving"

 

Its the same kind of differences between...  "I don't hate you....  I just hate your sins, your choices your lifestyle etc."  

 

If this forum has proven anything it is that what we intend to communicate with our words and actions...  and how we are understood by those we are trying to talk to can be vastly far apart... It is even worse when emotions are running high.

 

Now people can take the attitude that it is "Not my fault if they do not understand what I meant"   That can work when dealing with strangers...  But I don't think many of us would want are children to be alienated over a misunderstanding.  And lets face it very few people can see clearly the fine line we try to walk in this matter, if they feel like they are being attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The child, relative, friend, etc., who responds to a moral stand by calling another hateful and intolerant is engaging in manipulative bullying, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was your analogy to begin with (I just pushed it and it broke) so if you wish to retract it that does not bother me.  :)

Well, I think there's a difference between retracting an analogy versus acknowledging its limits. An analogy is by definition not the actual situation and, therefore, will inevitably break down if pushed a certain way. Doesn't mean the analogy is worthless; it just means that the analogy is just an analogy and not a literal description of the actual situation.

Gay marriage is grievously harmful, spiritually speaking--in many cases, quite possibly permanently so. It is not a mark of inferiority or immaturity or extraordinary selfishness to wish to avoid watching a loved one undergo such harm, even (or especially) if it is self-inflicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay marriage is grievously harmful, spiritually speaking--in many cases, quite possibly permanently so. It is not a mark of inferiority or immaturity or extraordinary selfishness to wish to avoid watching a loved one undergo such harm, even (or especially) if it is self-inflicted.

 

Indeed...  However we are talking about a situation were two main group have seriously different ideas/understandings of the harm involved.   One person's to avoid watching their loved one hurt themselves... is in the eyes of the other hating them/ not loving them enough.  This is a fundamental disconnect (Anatess' understanding and acceptance of her mom's action is a very rare exception)

 

Just as is not wrong to avoid the situation, and that doesn't make you a hater who lack loves, neither is it wrong stand by your child. This doesn't mean that you are some apostate supporter of those that run counter to the church's teachings.

 

Sometimes like Christ did, we need to eat with the publicans and sinners in the hope that we might by so doing be enabled to save a few. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't mean that you are some apostate supporter of those that run counter to the church's teachings.

 

I'm fairly certain that no one has said this, or even implied it.

 

My concern, for example, in attending or not attending such an event is less about my own state as an apostate or not (though I expect there is a concern for some along the lines of "We first endure, then pity, then embrace"), and more about what I stand for, who I represent, which way I face, and what message I am sending to others, including my loved ones.

 

Sometimes like Christ did, we need to eat with the publicans and sinners in the hope that we might by so doing be enabled to save a few. 

 

I'll happily eat lunch with a gay friend or associate any time. Going to their wedding is, simply, a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes like Christ did, we need to eat with the publicans and sinners in the hope that we might by so doing be enabled to save a few. 

 

Jesus did indeed eat with publicans, sinners, and prostitutes. I'm guessing that Jesus never encouraged the publicans to ruin widows, congratulated the sinners on their sins, or sat in the prostitutes' bedrooms.

 

I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, and I may not know until and unless I'm confronted by the situation. But apples-to-Buicks comparisons don't help.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Does attending a wedding show that you condone the marriage even if your conscience or religious background dictates otherwise?

 

 

 

 

 

What is wrong with this world? There are plenty of ways to show that we love someone without endorsing their behavior . . .which IMO attending his "wedding" is endorsing the behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If my mere presence at a wedding always meant that I condoned every aspect of the marriage, I wouldn't be attending very many weddings.  

 

 

 

I think the only reliable conclusion that can be made about a person attending a gay wedding is that they are attending a gay wedding. I don’t think their attendance is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that they are supporting, condoning or endorsing the event. It’s possible that that’s the reason why they are there but there are a hundred other possibilities as well. Unless the attendee has directly told us why they are there, we shouldn’t try to make any guesses as to their views on gay marriage simply because of their attendance at a gay wedding. I would hope that people would form their opinions, or make their judgements, on more substantial evidence than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what... if that's what you're gonna think of us unless we bend our lives to your desires... then that's what you're gonna think and there's really nothing we can do about that.

 

If loving can only happen if one bends to somebody else's idea of appropriate, then that love is weak and so it burns.  It burns not for the lack of support.  It burns for the lack of love.

 

Tess, could you elaborate a little, please, on your thoughts about the difference between "bending" and compromise? It's sometimes suggested that the willingness to compromise is an important ingredient in a successful marriage. At first glance, not bending sounds like not compromising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no longer illegal for a polygamous marriage ceremony (as long as it's not a "legal" marriage-license marriage) (in Utah). Did you miss that news? So how would attending that be supporting something illegal?

 

 

Could you elaborate on this a little please Folk prophet? I thought the Utah constitution had something in it about banning polygamous marriages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that I enjoy the most about this forum is that a person can come here, like Emsters85, or myself, and so many others, and pose a question that they are really unsure about, and then get a vigorous, thoughtful, well informed discussion in which a diverse range of views are expressed. Its nice when it works so well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that I enjoy the most about this forum is that a person can come here, like Emsters85, or myself, and so many others, and pose a question that they are really unsure about, and then get a vigorous, thoughtful, well informed discussion in which a diverse range of views are expressed. Its nice when it works so well.  

 

 

But it doesn't always work that well, sadly.  I am quite disappointed by the snarky and supercilious tone from some people... so much so that this is probably my last post here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain that no one has said this, or even implied it.

 

 

 

I would disagree... I think that has been implied..  Maybe not intentionally by the poster in question but we are talking about how what we think we are saying is not what others hear.

 

You are a perfect case of that Folk Prophet.

 

Example 

 

Supporting a loved family member on a day that's important to them would be my motivation. Just like my sister has occasionally come to baby blessings and baptisms even though she doesn't believe in the Church.

 

 

This seems to be a perfect example someone going because they think they can to more good by being there rather then not and running the risk of alienation of the people they wish to save.

 

Your response was to edit out all the details of why in her post leaving just the word "Supporting."  While I am not Eowyn and she can speak for herself.  I know I would not like to have my position on the subject reduced to simply "Supporting" (Gay marriage by inference)  There is a whole bunch of context, reasoning and intent completely stripped out of her answer to justify yours.

 

Now we have acknowledged that this is a subject that requires thoughtful prayer and consideration... That both sides could act for good reason or bad reason.

 

Jesus did indeed eat with publicans, sinners, and prostitutes. I'm guessing that Jesus never encouraged the publicans to ruin widows, congratulated the sinners on their sins, or sat in the prostitutes' bedrooms.

 

I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, and I may not know until and unless I'm confronted by the situation. But apples-to-Buicks comparisons don't help.

 

And I am sure that was the implication the leaders of the day were to trying to make about Jesus too.  Thank you for showing for just another example for my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate on this a little please Folk prophet? I thought the Utah constitution had something in it about banning polygamous marriages.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this