Saints and Homosexuality

[crytsprospect]

Wordflood as usual you make great points...... We are so fast to judge and a bit slower to try compassion

[Fiannan]

Following the California Supreme Court's decision Thursday to overturn a ban on gay marriage there, both the LDS Church and the Catholic Archdiocese in San Francisco released statements about the decision, reiterating their views of marriage and commenting on the court's action.

Both churches worked to help outlaw gay marriage in California several years ago.

The LDS Church released the following statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Today's California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate."

The church declined comment on what future action it may take to help challenge the court's decision. Opponents of the ruling are hoping a planned November ballot measure seeking to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage will succeed. The LDS Church was active in urging California residents to ban gay marriage through a public referendum in March 2000. Proposition 22 was designed to prevent formal sanction of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions from gaining future legal recognition on par with traditional marriage. Voters approved the measure, with 61 percent in favor and 39 percent opposed.

...

The LDS Church's area presidency in California sent out a letter seeking support for the initiative that was read from the pulpit to some 740,000 members. Word of that action, and subsequent fundraising and financial support, pushed San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Mark Leno to publicly question whether the church's tax-exempt status should be revoked.

Deseret News | LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision

If the issue was important enough for the Church to spend a lot of money and man hours to get a ban on gay marriage approved by the voters I think that makes it quite clear where the Church stands.

[crytsprospect]

wait a minute I thought the church stays out of politics?????

[skalenfehl]

The church takes no official stance on endorsing political candidates, but takes a strong stance on issues. We are encouraged individually to seek out the best candidates and vote accordingly. The church will never take a role in influencing anyone on who to vote for.

[Guest User-Removed]

Deseret News | LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision

If the issue was important enough for the Church to spend a lot of money and man hours to get a ban on gay marriage approved by the voters I think that makes it quite clear where the Church stands.

Fiannan...I'm curious here...Do you stand with the Church's position...or with the position of Assemblyman Leno?

[MichaelPAGuy]

That is a clear example of the church not staying out of politics. Next thing you know, they will be telling you to vote for *.

Edited for violating rule #7 of the terms and conditions:

7. Do not post or upload any names of political candidates or posts that insinuate a particular candidate. Do not make post, messages, videos, or uploads in reference to political candidates. You may not use LDS.NET to endorse any candidate running for political office. You may not use LDS.Net to intervene directly or indirectly in the election process by endorsing a political candidate. Any post that speaks favorably about one candidate, even in a religious context, can be construed as indirect intervention in the election process.

[skalenfehl]

Next thing you know, they will be telling you to vote for *.

No it won't.

[Brother Dorsey]

That is a clear example of the church not staying out of politics. Next thing you know, they will be telling you to vote for *.

Exactly! Or they'll be telling you to NOT vote for a flaming liberal like * or *! Darn church!

Edit: As mentioned in a previous post, I'm deleting the names of candidates per rule #7 of the terms and conditions.

7. Do not post or upload any names of political candidates or posts that insinuate a particular candidate. Do not make post, messages, videos, or uploads in reference to political candidates. You may not use LDS.NET to endorse any candidate running for political office. You may not use LDS.Net to intervene directly or indirectly in the election process by endorsing a political candidate. Any post that speaks favorably about one candidate, even in a religious context, can be construed as indirect intervention in the election process.

[skalenfehl]

The church has never endorsed any political candidate and I don't suspect it ever will. It takes strong stances on issues, but that is as far as it goes. We are encouraged to stay informed of current events and to be involved with the process so that we can go to the polls informed and educated to make intelligent decisions on who we vote for.

[Palerider]

That is a clear example of the church not staying out of politics. Next thing you know, they will be telling you to vote for *.

regardless of what you call it....the Church does not endorse candidates and they will not tell you who to vote for. They will and have always spoken out on moral issues.....

[Elphaba]

Oh what a twisted web we weave.....

. . . .

You are correct...at one time in America it was illegal for a black man/woman to marry a white man/woman...That's the point the California Supreme Court missed...Mscegenation was between MEN and WOMEN of different races.

The California Supreme Court has REDEFINED marriage...not clarified it....

Again...as I've stated to others...read the decision...the links been posted twice...

I made no comment about the validity of the CSC's ruling.

I used miscegenation in response to xzian's dire predictions , of "legalization of beastiality, rape and murder, polyamory, and other heinous crimes."

People like xzian predicted these "heinous" atrocities would occur if the SCOTUS ruled the laws prohibiting mixed marriages were unconstitutional. It did, and none of the dire predictions happened.

If SSM were to be legalized, despite xzian's absurd slippery slope scenario, beastility would not become legal, nor any of the other things he predicted.

Obviously that was the point of my post.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

If SSM is legalized, I can't see how polygamy will not follow suit. It has a long history, and has existed under several different religious and cultural settings. A recent turn in my view on this (back towards the right) is that societies have a long history of establishing common social mores. Therefore, it is acceptable, though not always preferable, for the dominant culture to say, "We'll not recognize this particular practice."

Why would so many Christians see SSM as one of those few areas in which to impose the majority will? Quite frankly, because we believe God will bless societies that practice biblical mores.

I can already see the slippery slope arguments slide the other way, so would just add that most Christians today would choose to impose very little on others. However, all the Abrahamic religions, and most other major religions are in agreement on this matter, and we are not speaking of a 50.01% majority here.

Having said all that, my predictions is that SSM will indeed be legal here, and fairly quickly.

[Elphaba]

regardless of what you call it....the Church does not endorse candidates and they will not tell you who to vote for. They will and have always spoken out on moral issues.....

I agree this is true, and think a significant number of members understand this as well, but I don't think all of the members understand it.

For example, sometimes I do hear "the Church does not get involved in politics," from a few young adults in my family. They think that means no politics whatsoever. I think this is because they've never observed the Church taking a strong stance on a political issue before. They are all in Utah, and aren't aware of the California initiative the Church actively spoke out against.

Additionally, the myth originated somewhere. I believe it came from a Church authority's communication long ago; however, that is pure speculation on my part as I have not researched it. But I don't believe it originated with "antis," though they repeat it often.

So when an unsuspecting person, interested in the Church, comes across this myth on the internet, she thinks it is all politics. Although, I suspect if she is really interested in the Church, she'll find sites like this one and and discover the truth.

This is a long post where I am just trying to say I do believe the misconception is repeated by both members and non-members alike, giving some the wrong idea.

"Emma"

[Palerider]

I agree this is true, and think a significant number of members understand this as well, but I don't think all of the members understand it.

For example, sometimes I do hear "the Church does not get involved in politics," from a few young adults in my family. They think that means no politics whatsoever. I think this is because they've never observed the Church taking a strong stance on a political issue before. They are all in Utah, and aren't aware of the California initiative the Church actively spoke out against.

Additionally, the myth originated somewhere. I believe it came from a Church authority's communication long ago; however, that is pure speculation on my part as I have not researched it. But I don't believe it originated with "antis," though they repeat it often.

So when an unsuspecting person, interested in the Church, comes across this myth on the internet, she thinks it is all politics. Although, I suspect if she is really interested in the Church, she'll find sites like this one and and discover the truth.

This is a long post where I am just trying to say I do believe the misconception is repeated by both members and non-members alike, giving some the wrong idea.

"Emma"

Pale reaches over and punches a hole in the wall, cause he agrees with Emma....wow.....what is this world coming to....

one of favorite lines is....when a member states......they can't see how a church memebr could be a democrat....wow...I have alot of democrat friends that belong to the church. I also know we have and there have been several general authorities that are democrats.

[Elphaba]

If SSM is legalized, I can't see how polygamy will not follow suit. It has a long history, and has existed under several different religious and cultural settings. A recent turn in my view on this (back towards the right) is that societies have a long history of establishing common social mores. Therefore, it is acceptable, though not always preferable, for the dominant culture to say, "We'll not recognize this particular practice."

Hi PC,

If I understand you correctly, I think you're saying while society may accept SSM, it will not accept polygamy.

If that's not what you're saying, let me know.

Either way, I don't think it is going to matter what society will or will not accept. In Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS essentially ruled people have a right to privacy in the bedroom. I believe this sets a precedent that if polygamists sued for the right to make polygamy legal, the polygamists would win.

However, I doubt the SCOTUS would see the case, as it has already ruled on this aspect of privacy.

Nevertheless, I do believe polygamy will be legalized in my lifetime, as I don't see a good argument against it, given the Lawrence vs. Texas precedent.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Hi PC,

If I understand you correctly, I think you're saying while society may accept SSM, it will not accept polygamy.

If that's not what you're saying, let me know.

It's not. If SSM is legalized, imho, polygamy MUST follow--it has a stronger case, legally.

[Fiannan]

Fiannan...I'm curious here...Do you stand with the Church's position...or with the position of Assemblyman Leno?

Hey, the only Leno I like is Jay Leno -- unlike the other late night hosts he is actually quite funny.

And I do support the Church position on this issue.

As for the slippery slope argument here's a perfect example. In the 1960s birth control was still ilegal in many states. The US Supreme Court then used a non-existant phrase in the constitution called "hte right to privacy" to throw out these restrictions on birth control. They would then use this same precedent to validate Roe v. Wade a decade later. And then a bit over two decades later they returned to this idea and invalidated every state law banning sodomy. Now if you had said back in the 1960s that the courts essentially making birth control legal throughout the USA would lead to the legalization of homosexual acts nationwide I think most people would have thought you were really pusing it. Yet...

[WANDERER]

The 'right to privacy' ...I wonder when that has not been sufficient.

[Redbeard]

Just wanted to throw in really quick-

This thread is not meant to be a debate on the church's stance on homosexuality, I was asking a question to people individually. If you would like to debate the church's stance please do so in a different thread so this one is not closed.

Thanks

[Guest User-Removed]

I agree this is true, and think a significant number of members understand this as well, but I don't think all of the members understand it.

For example, sometimes I do hear "the Church does not get involved in politics," from a few young adults in my family. They think that means no politics whatsoever. I think this is because they've never observed the Church taking a strong stance on a political issue before. They are all in Utah, and aren't aware of the California initiative the Church actively spoke out against.

Additionally, the myth originated somewhere. I believe it came from a Church authority's communication long ago; however, that is pure speculation on my part as I have not researched it. But I don't believe it originated with "antis," though they repeat it often.

So when an unsuspecting person, interested in the Church, comes across this myth on the internet, she thinks it is all politics. Although, I suspect if she is really interested in the Church, she'll find sites like this one and and discover the truth.

This is a long post where I am just trying to say I do believe the misconception is repeated by both members and non-members alike, giving some the wrong idea.

"Emma"

Please tell us...what was the initiative you claim the Church spoke out actively against here in California?

[Hemidakota]

Not to sidestep this thread; from my Sundays conversation with some of the brethren, the statement, '...all roads lead to the temple", the California initiative is to them a wake up call on what to expect next from Lucifer's minions.

[Guest User-Removed]

Not to sidestep this thread; from my Sundays conversation with some of the brethren, the statement, '...all roads lead to the temple", the California initiative is to them a wake up call on what to expect next from Lucifer's minions.

When I was a kid...the term "Alternative Lifestyle" was coined and popularized...NOW...some 40 years later...the "Alternative Lifestyle" has become mainstream....AND...we're now the "Alternative Lifestyle" based on todays standards....

Someone quick...Remind us...who was it who said the day would come when Good is Evil...and Evil is Good????

[Hemidakota]

Skip, I am stumped on this one but I would say it was Enoch the first one to talk about it.

[Moksha]

It's not. If SSM is legalized, IMHO, polygamy MUST follow--it has a stronger case, legally.

Possibly, but:

1. It would have to meet the consenting adult rule for it to actually be made legal.

2. Such marriages would have to be self sustaining, rather than trying to perpetuate welfare fraud from the git go as a means of funding itself.

3. They could not abuse their children by luring their teen daughters into arranged marriages with middle aged men and abandoning their teen sons to a life of street prostitution.

At least these would be the requirements in the State of Moksha.

[Guest Xzain]

Elphaba, I can see our basic fundamental thought processes are different, and you see me as provincial. I will leave most of your post alone and only address key issues.

How are you “acted upon” when two people who love each other get married?

What happens in your house certainly does affect my house, or mores specifically my family. Our children would interact at school, play, and social activites. The residual influences of both our parenting styles affect both our children. If you're doing something morally wrong, I don't want my child- or yours- to be exposed to it.

The real question is not whether what you do affects me, because what you do today affects my children tomorrow- and I would live and die for my posterity. The real question is what's really right or wrong.

To clarify, the 'acted upon vs. acting upon' dichotomy is spiritual and has reference to the spiritual import of temptation, not necessarily the social implications of legalized SSM. I do not know if you missed that or if you are trying to turn my own words against me.

Yes [sSM] is [a civil rights issue], just as every other civil rights issue has been.

For example, there was a time it was illegal for a white person and a black person to marry. And believe it or not, it‘s only been a little over thirty years since the Supreme Court ruled miscegenation was unconstitutional.

Only if you accept homosexuality as an unalterable, morally viable part of someone's nature (as is race) does it become a civil rights issue. Because I don't and have good reason not to, I don't see it as such. You may disagree, but I'm sure you can appreciate where I'm coming from and not unfairly compare such weighty matters with something we both agree was a violation of fundamental human rights.

I see homosexuality and segregation in different categories in the political and social arenas; to me, they're apples and oranges.

The "Church" says nothing of the sort [about homosexuality being conquerable].

In your haste to discredit me, you didn't stop to realize I might be talking about the usual situation instead of an all-encompasing generality, which was indeed the intended tenor of my post. I'll try to write more clearly next time.

The Church says that in most cases same sex attraction is not severe enough to overrule all healthy heterosexual affection. Indeed, you said so yourself. Our difference in viewpoint is that I see homosexuality as a temptation to be dealt with; you see it as an immutable part of someone's nature. (I think; I may be wrong here. Please correct me if I am) If a temptation is inhibitive to righteous living, it is better for a man to 'pluck out his eye' rather than let it offend him.

(I'm assuming you're not gay.)

While said in jest, this brings up the point that I have dealt with, and continue to deal with, SSA. It's not as powerful as other people's cases, but had I given into it earlier in my life I can assure you I would no doubt label myself 'gay' along with my best friend from my childhood years, who also suffered from SSA. Unfortunately, he gave into it and then decided- yes, decided- he was gay. Out of respect for him I will not say too much; let it suffice to say that he continued to seek heterosexual experiences and when the 'ultimate' wasn't enough he had to turn to a greater extreme- homsexuality.

In fact, President Hinckley addressed this saying men with SSA should not marry in their lifetime.

Show me the quote, please. I remember once he said that with the clarifying clause 'if they cannot overcome it'. If we're thinking of the same talk, you've seemed to forgotten an important part. I admit I cannot cite my exact source this time, but you brought it up.

The "Church" does not confirm homosexuality is NOT unescapable. What Elder Oaks says is to not let homosexuality be what defines the person. Make note of this the next time you discuss what the "Church" teaches, especially when your fellow Latter-day Saint in the pew next to you is gay.

I'll be sure to do so, since I've read the article twice, once on my own and once with my beloved girlfriend who struggled with the Church's postion on SSM. Some of her good friends were self-declared homosexuals.

I remember Elder Oaks saying not to let homosexuality define one's personality- I agree with him- but I also remember him saying that homosexuality is, in most cases, conquerable. It is important to note the Church's fundamental belief that simply because one feels impulses towards one behavior, that does not mean such action must follow suit. (I got that tidbit from the article) It is also important to note that feelings of SSA, no matter to what degree, may be related to, but not the ultimate factor in, a lack of heterosexual attraction.

No offense Elphaba, but being a faithful, studying member of my Church who attends all the classes I can, listens and ponders the words of the leaders, and prays to my God above, I believe I know more about what the Church actually teaches than someone who is not.

And you know [that the ultimate philosophy behind homosexual marriage is that pleasure is the ultimate pursuit of mankind] how?

Experience, logic, discussion, and a helpful talk from one of the GA's (I can find it if you're terribly interested; it's on my iPod somewhere). I think it was either Russell M. Nelson or M. Russell Balard who said that he believed the basis for homosexual acts (not inclinations, but acts) was selfishness- I am inclined to agree, although the degree to which 'selfishness' can be intermingled with a sincere desire to be happy is certainly differs from case to case.

It is of note that those 'discussions' are not just with those who feel the way I do, but also with those who feel the way you do. I have seen nothing with significant spiritual cogency to sway my opinion.

Have you ever taken a physics or astronomy class?

You've got me there; I have regretfully never taken either. I'll have to stick with basic earth science classes and biology.

This seems to be an appropriate place to say this-

In response to the tenor of your post that labels me as ignorant, I assure you that I have read, discussed, pondered, prayed, and studied this topic. I pray you accept that one can have much, if not all, the information you do and come to a different conclusion without being mentally inferior.

I promise you, the moon is not going to lose its orbit if gay people are allowed to marry. Mars will not crash into the sun if two women exchange vows. And the states who legalize SSM will not be sucked into black holes, leaving a rent in the fabric of time.

Obviously, we are speaking on two different levels: I am talking about the spiritual order of things, you are talking about the physical order of things. For purposes of this discussion, it's apples and oranges.

I would appreciate it if you keep condescending facetiousness out of serious discussions, please. I try to give the same courtesy.

This is your definition of logic?

[Rant that misses the entire point of my post.]

Elphaba

Elphaba, you don't understand. I said that same logic employed to legalize same-sex marriage could also be employed to legalize those other crimes. I don't believe you understand my stance on what that logic entails, because you have certainly, in what seems to be haste to attack an easy target, misunderstood the rest of my post.

I want that to be the end of it; I don't want to turn this into a debate. In this case, with the lack of evidence initially given by me, it would quickly devolve into a flame war. If you feel the need to continue this conversation I would gladly do so through PM or another thread.