Attending a Gay Wedding


Emsters85
 Share

Recommended Posts

(Anatess' understanding and acceptance of her mom's action is a very rare exception)

 

Au contraire...

 

Vort just posted a "Does this sound familiar to you, Anatess?" thread and this is another one of those learning-to-be-Americanisms.

 

In most Asian cultures - you go against the family tradition you're going to have a fight in your hands, guaranteed.  But, because you're family, you shouldn't have to ask if you're still loved... even after your father kicks you out of the island.  You can be assured they still have your back - they'll kill all the alligators so you can cross safely to the other island and all that... At the same time, you still desire to open your doors to save your mother from having to pay for hotel when she visits your island.  That's just the way it is.

 

But... I have also learned... that this family connection is not just an Asian thing.  There are Americans that are more "Asian" with their family than the Asian immigrant.

 

But yes, it seems like the PC police has America in its strong grip.  So I see this really as a PC thing more than it is anything else.  "We can't offend!".

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire...

 

Vort just posted a "Does this sound familiar to you, Anatess?" thread and this is another one of those learning-to-be-Americanisms.

 

In most Asian cultures - you go against the family tradition you're going to have a fight in your hands, guaranteed.  But, because you're family, you shouldn't have to ask if you're still loved... even after your father kicks you out of the island.  You can be assured they still have your back - they'll kill all the alligators so you can cross safely to the other island and all that... At the same time, you still desire to open your doors to save your mother from having to pay for hotel when she visits your island.  That's just the way it is.

 

 

Fair enough... maybe you situation is cultural rather then personal...  But I stand by my assertion that that many of the other forum goers are find it very rare thing for them to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

It also goes the other way... their non-attendance does not show sufficient evidence that they are unloving and hateful.

 

So we're back to my very first statement on this topic - it's completely up to the individual whether they want to attend or not.  If they don't want to, they shouldn't feel pressured to do so by those who will think of them of being unloving - including the gay couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough... maybe you situation is cultural rather then personal...  But I stand by my assertion that that many of the other forum goers are find it very rare thing for them to accomplish.

 

I added to my post - you probably didn't catch it.

 

This is not cultural, I don't think.  This is just another byproduct of the PC police of the USA.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Wait...why is is a valid concern that the gay marriage people might misread our intent as hateful if we don't attend their weddings, but the same is unjust applied in reverse...that they may just as well misread our meaning in attending as being supportive of things that we are not supportive of. Something that, in my opinion, may actually be worse.

 

My communication methods are, certainly, less than perfect in many cases. But I was not translating Eowyn's statement to accuse her of supporting gay marriage. I wasn't twisting her words just to make a point or win an argument.

 

If what we're discussing here is perception, then we're really debating the issue of whether it's more important to be perceived as loving than it is to be perceived as standing for truth and right. Or, perhaps more accurately, that the most important part of what constitutes truth and right is being perceived as "loving" (in quotes because true Christ-like love is significantly more than perception or feel-good comradely).

 

We're talking about wherein lies the greater damage. A perception of support or a perception of intolerance.

 

I am claiming that the perception of intolerance, contrary to the popular view on the matter, is not necessarily that harmful, and perhaps even positive. I am claiming that standing ground in such matters sets examples, teaches, and is in some cases a better tool for seeking out the lost sheep than prioritizing the perception of love as paramount in every case. Of course in standing one's ground we need to do so kindly. I'm not advocating cutting them out of your lives, nor I'm not advocating hateful speech. But the perception of intolerance in today's world is one of the adversary's greatest weapons. We are constantly bludgeoned by the world that if we are even perceived as intolerant in any matter then we are guilty of the greater sin. I call malarkey on that.

 

I'm not saying by that that we should never worry about other's perceptions of us, or that we shouldn't try and be perceived as loving. I am saying that it is not the core standard to live by. I am saying that it may not be (probably not, imo) the primary concern in the matter of attending gay weddings.

 

But I respect (honestly and very much) Eowyn's prayerful choice. And I am not claiming that she was wrong to attend. I used her statement as a springboard to an idea about perception as it pertains to the conversation. Eowyn, I apologize for my poor communication on that matter if I offended you.

 

Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that I very much allow for someone, like Eowyn, to follow the Spirit and to choose to attend. I do not begrudge anyone that decision. JaG has said similar things. No one has drawn a hard line in the sand in the matter (particularly for others), or stated unequivocally that no one should ever attend a gay wedding. No one has said that anyone who attends a gay wedding is apostate or anything close to it. Inference on your part (or others') does not demonstrate implication.

 

Also, you're point is just as unfair. You have taken one example...where I quoted only the word supporting...and stripped out all the other times where I've stated, quite plainly, that I allow for personal choice in the matter, as directed by the Spirit, as completely valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

There's no difference.  Bending and compromising in this context are the same.

 

Willingness to compromise is an important ingredient in a successful marriage, yes.  But, one does not sacrifice one's principles in the spirit of compromise.  Hence, there are things that cannot be compromised on.  A Catholic, for example, cannot perform elective abortions.  A Catholic nurse cannot compromise with his Staff Admin when there's a staff shortage and her services are needed in an elective abortive surgery.  Even if the Staff Admin is his spouse... and even if he becomes the cause of burnt bridges with the other nurses or the patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added to my post - you probably didn't catch it.

 

This is not cultural, I don't think.  This is just another byproduct of the PC police of the USA.

 

Edit  no fair editing  :)

 

While I can see it being true that some people do not want to offend but to paint everyone that would go as "Unwilling to offend or stand for God" is unfair.

 

For example you know I can be quite offensive when I choose to make a stand... That is not a problem for me.  Now considering the hypothetical question would I attend my child Gay Wedding.  I don't know because I really have not had to make that choice.  And I hope to never have to.  But in considering it as a hypothetical for me and my family, I can't image that my child could get to that point without having a very good understanding of all the reasons that I was against it and thought it was a "BAD" course of action.  If we have reached the point of having a Gay Wedding then I have more or less lost that battle.

 

I would see "Not attending"  as an attempt of a final "Hail Mary" type pass to stop my child from doing what I know will hurt them.  So I can see the appeal of that.  But I can also see how such an act on my part could alienate me from the child that I am trying to help.  It would most like result in my child's heart hardening toward me for a long time to come.

 

So I have a choice.... I can make one last attempt to win this battle.  Or I can realize that this one battle does not end the war and I can work to make sure I am in a long term position to help with the other battles that will come.  And that for me would be a huge reason for me to attend.  And it has nothing to do with me not desiring to offend or being unwilling to take a stand for what I believe is right 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit  no fair editing   :)

 

While I can see it being true that some people do not want to offend but to paint everyone that would go as "Unwilling to offend or stand for God" is unfair.

 

Nobody inferred that in this thread... or at least, I didn't.

 

My position has been very clear.  The OP should go or not go according to his principles.  And I made this even clearer - If he does not want to go, he should not feel pressured to go lest he might be thought of as unloving.  The opposite is, of course, just as true - if does want to go, he should not feel pressured not to go lest he be thought of as Dehlin-ish.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait...why is is a valid concern that the gay marriage people might misread our intent as hateful if we don't attend their weddings, but the same is unjust applied in reverse...that they may just as well misread our meaning in attending as being supportive of things that we are not supportive of. Something that, in my opinion, may actually be worse.

 

My communication methods are, certainly, less than perfect in many cases. But I was not translating Eowyn's statement to accuse her of supporting gay marriage. I wasn't twisting her words just to make a point or win an argument.

 

If what we're discussing here is perception, then we're really debating the issue of whether it's more important to be perceived as loving than it is to be perceived as standing for truth and right. Or, perhaps more accurately, that the most important part of what constitutes truth and right is being perceived as "loving" (in quotes because true Christ-like love is significantly more than perception or feel-good comradely).

 

We're talking about wherein lies the greater damage. A perception of support or a perception of intolerance.

 

I am claiming that the perception of intolerance, contrary to the popular view on the matter, is not necessarily that harmful, and perhaps even positive. I am claiming that standing ground in such matters sets examples, teaches, and is in some cases a better tool for seeking out the lost sheep than prioritizing the perception of love as paramount in every case. Of course in standing one's ground we need to do so kindly. I'm not advocating cutting them out of your lives, nor I'm not advocating hateful speech. But the perception of intolerance in today's world is one of the adversary's greatest weapons. We are constantly bludgeoned by the world that if we are even perceived as intolerant in any matter then we are guilty of the greater sin. I call malarkey on that.

 

I'm not saying by that that we should never worry about other's perceptions of us, or that we shouldn't try and be perceived as loving. I am saying that it is not the core standard to live by. I am saying that it may not be (probably not, imo) the primary concern in the matter of attending gay weddings.

 

But I respect (honestly and very much) Eowyn's prayerful choice. And I am not claiming that she was wrong to attend. I used her statement as a springboard to an idea about perception as it pertains to the conversation. Eowyn, I apologize for my poor communication on that matter if I offended you.

 

Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that I very much allow for someone, like Eowyn, to follow the Spirit and to choose to attend. I do not begrudge anyone that decision. JaG has said similar things. No one has drawn a hard line in the sand in the matter (particularly for others), or stated unequivocally that no one should ever attend a gay wedding. No one has said that anyone who attends a gay wedding is apostate or anything close to it. Inference on your part (or others') does not demonstrate implication.

 

Also, you're point is just as unfair. You have taken one example...where I quoted only the word supporting...and stripped out all the other times where I've stated, quite plainly, that I allow for personal choice in the matter, as directed by the Spirit, as completely valid.

 

 

I have repeatedly said and acknowledged that it goes both ways...  I fact right before I used you as an example I pointed out that was very unlikely to be what you meant.  Just that most likely could be taken much harsher then you wished.

 

As to why should we bear the greater burden to communicate well (again both sides)?  Because we are the ones trying to save some souls.   We can't help someone who thinks we are going to just attack and condemn them.  Thus if we want to accomplish our desires we need to make sure we are understood properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit  no fair editing   :)

 

While I can see it being true that some people do not want to offend but to paint everyone that would go as "Unwilling to offend or stand for God" is unfair.

 

For example you know I can be quite offensive when I choose to make a stand... That is not a problem for me.  Now considering the hypothetical question would I attend my child Gay Wedding.  I don't know because I really have not had to make that choice.  And I hope to never have to.  But in considering it as a hypothetical for me and my family, I can't image that my child could get to that point without having a very good understanding of all the reasons that I was against it and thought it was a "BAD" course of action.  If we have reached the point of having a Gay Wedding then I have more or less lost that battle.

 

I would see "Not attending"  as an attempt of a final "Hail Mary" type pass to stop my child from doing what I know will hurt them.  So I can see the appeal of that.  But I can also see how such an act on my part could alienate me from the child that I am trying to help.  It would most like result in my child's heart hardening toward me for a long time to come.

 

So I have a choice.... I can make one last attempt to win this battle.  Or I can realize that this one battle does not end the war and I can work to make sure I am in a long term position to help with the other battles that will come.  And that for me would be a huge reason for me to attend.  And it has nothing to do with me not desiring to offend or being unwilling to take a stand for what I believe is right 

 

This is very interesting, and I had a similar thought, but a different conclusion. If I had a child that was getting gay married, likewise, they would also long since know where I stand, etc., on the matter, and there should be no ambiguity on the matter whatsoever as to their understanding that A. I love them in spite of it and B. That I will not attend.  Because of this, I believe that any expression or determination that they have that they are not loved would be, as I have said, a manipulative attempt to coerce acceptance. And they may go so far internally even so as to convince themselves that they are not loved. But it would not be valid.

 

It makes me think of when I was a child and how often I was in a fury in my room, feeling so abused and hated, telling myself that my parents didn't love me, etc., because of the injustice they had imbued. As an adult, I fully well know that non of this was valid. No matter the strength of my feelings and expression, the truth is that in retrospect, I know full well that my parents very much loved me, that their actions, including punishment and the like, were motivated by love, and that I am a better person for it. I know that their acquiescing to my petulance would have been harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to why should we bear the greater burden to communicate well (again both sides)?  Because we are the ones trying to save some souls.   We can't help someone who thinks we are going to just attack and condemn them.  Thus if we want to accomplish our desires we need to make sure we are understood properly.

 

I agree. But where we seem to disagree (perhaps) is in what message needs to be understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Don't let them put you off, you need to keep in mind the circle of influences and areas of the country in which other people live. Our perspective is different based on where we live, who we interact with, and how we were raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Yes, I agree. That is what they were trying to do. They were liars. You think I'm a liar, too? If not, I do not understand your implication. Please explain it more clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden February 19, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden February 19, 2015 - No reason given

What is the church's stance? My brother is openly gay and has been since college. He and his boyfriend are wanting to get married, but he is nervous about inviting LDS family members, which includes most of our immediate family. He has a positive relationship with our parents and the rest of us.

 

He should be hanged! Bloody dirty faggot! Das findest du gut, was? Wenn dein Freund seiem Freund den Penis in den Arsch steckt? Du perverse Sau! You pervert! You should get familiar wit a Winchester 5000 shot! Directly into yor faggot face! In the name of the LIre, who you are offending and spitting on! One day you will meet an avanging angel! Promisesd, dirty< sack!

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden February 19, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden February 19, 2015 - No reason given

Yes, I agree. That is what they were trying to do. They were liars. You think I'm a liar, too? If not, I do not understand your implication. Please explain it more clearly.

 

Hang'em high, those faggots. Wofür sind denn Bäume und Laternen da?

Link to comment

Yes, I agree. That is what they were trying to do. They were liars. You think I'm a liar, too? If not, I do not understand your implication. Please explain it more clearly.

 

I don't think you were lying and I was not trying to imply or infer that. 

 

More then happy to try to clarify...  Context  I was talking about how while our intent in our communication might be very sincere and even Godly we need to understand that... Sometimes what we intend to communicate gets misunderstood due to how the other person interprets it...  So lets run with a possible interpretation of your words 

 

Your initial comment that is my focus

 

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

 

 

 

 

Since the context of Jesus eating with publicans and sinners was  about those attend Gay marriages, so let place that in and flip the negative because it seem clear you are inferring that they do those things.  So it becomes

 

Gay Marriage attendees ruin widows, congratulated the sinner on their sins, and set in the prostitutes bedroom.

 

Now since some people have say they have or would attend lets make it personal (because people do that). Now I think I have picked on Eowyn enough and I have givin my thought on the matter so lets use me.  So here is how your comment now reads

 

 estradling75 ruin widows, congratulates the sinner on their sins, and sits in the prostitutes bedroom.

 

If that is how I understand your statement then I am going to see that as a direct attack and judgement by you toward me.  And I don't think that understanding is that hard to come to.  

 

Now I did not reach that understanding from your words.   Because I was serious about both sides needing to work on it, and I have an even larger context of prior dealings with you and how you post, to help me refine what you most likely mean.  But others might not have such a context of prior dealing with you or might have more negative prior context that colors it even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think you were lying and I was not trying to imply or infer that.

Thanks for the clarification. The inference was mine, and apparently was wrong.

 

More then happy to try to clarify...  Context  I was talking about how while our intent in our communication might be very sincere and even Godly we need to understand that... Sometimes what we intend to communicate gets misunderstood due to how the other person interprets it...

True, and I think this is a worthwhile topic to examine. Unfortunately, our present conversation appears to be an example.

 

Since the context of Jesus eating with publicans and sinners was  about those attend Gay marriages, so let place that in and flip the negative because it seem clear you are inferring that they do those things.  So it becomes

 

Gay Marriage attendees ruin widows, congratulated the sinner on their sins, and set in the prostitutes bedroom.

Only if you think that Jesus' dining with publicans, sinners, and prostitutes means that Jesus ruined widows. (The other two are correct.)

 

Indeed, my point was that Jesus clearly did love the sinner, and especially the penitent sinner. But Jesus never encouraged the sinner in their sin or congratulated them on their attainment of some sinful status. He never urged the publican to ruin the widow, nor congratulated the sinner in his sin, nor sat in the prostitute's bedroom.

 

My equivalency was that attending the "wedding" of a homosexual couple might well be an encouragement of a sinful state and of bad behavior, a thing which Jesus never did. I used the equivalency based on the example you brought up, of Jesus dining with sinful people. I think dining with publicans and prostitutes is a different thing from celebrating the "wedding" of homosexuals.

 

Now since some people have say they have or would attend lets make it personal (because people do that). Now I think I have picked on Eowyn enough and I have givin my thought on the matter so lets use me.  So here is how your comment now reads

 

 estradling75 ruin widows, congratulates the sinner on their sins, and sits in the prostitutes bedroom.

 

If that is how I understand your statement then I am going to see that as a direct attack and judgement by you toward me.  And I don't think that understanding is that hard to come to.  

 

Now I did not reach that understanding from your words.   Because I was serious about both sides needing to work on it, and I have an even larger context of prior dealings with you and how you post, to help me refine what you most likely mean.  But others might not have such a context of prior dealing with you or might have more negative prior context that colors it even worse.

I appreciate your clear-eyed and level-headed explanation, and hope I have illustrated how the example I provided is reasonably interpreted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder Quentin L. Cook stated (and before some of you jump on me, I am NOT saying this quote states we should attend gay weddings but it tells us how we, as Latter-Day Saints, should be towards people choosing to live an homosexual lifestyle and not just merely someone struggling with same sex attraction but not acting upon those feelings.

 

Then each one of us can ponder on our own and evaluate if we are striving to live by this or not, both in every day life and the way we express ourselves towards gay related topics in the forum.

 

“As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except when you believe, as many people (including myself) do, that the actions of a single day, even if it is a big family event such as a wedding, do not constitute exclusionary or disrespectful behavior. If I cut off all contact with a gay friend or relative, or harassed them, or spread ugly lies about them, or did not invite them to attend a non-religious family event of my own  - and made a big stink about it, or tried to divide them from their other family members.. these things would be wrong. Why is it so hard for so many people, LDS or not, to see that there are many levels of "grey area" between the actions of outright complete acceptance, tolerance, and activism in their favor.. and outright hatred, neglect, and the desire to be hurtful?

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