- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I grew up near San Francisco where we were one of the first cities to have a homosexual prom (yes homosexual only). My best friend was bi-sexual. I wondered on quite a few occasions about my own sexuality and if I was bi or homo myself. For me, I found heterosexual to be the course I took. As such the subject of homosexual marriage is very dear to me. The question of gay marriage is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with a homosexual lifestyle. Any consenting adults should always be free to engage in sexual activity without restrictions imposed by the government. The question is what does allowing any sort of marriage do to benefit society and should a government impose any sort of restrictions on marriage? What business does the government have in telling us who and when we can marry, especially if one is in love regardless of who, what or how old they are? Why don’t governments simplify and do away with marriage entirely?
The assertion is if two people love each other then they should be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender. But why stop at two people? Why not three or ten or a hundred or even a million people be allowed to marry as one big communal marriage? Why does it have to be just people? Why can’t someone marry his or her dog or cat? Why can’t someone marry a four-year old child? What about teenagers and children? How about parents marrying their kids? Would it be wrong for brothers and sisters or cousins to marry? Can we not claim it should be our civil right that we are allowed the freedom to marry in all of these circumstances?
The reason governments support and define marriage is rooted in the question of how a society is sustained. When you boil everything down the answer is that a society’s population must continually replenish or else a society ceases to exist. Many people, especially now, do not want children and those that do, often only want to have one. If a society is to maintain the current population every person now living needs to be replaced. This is why governments provide tax benefits to a man and woman who are married—they have a very likely chance of producing offspring. To encourage and help offset the cost of having children, the government provides additional incentives with further tax benefits for each child the couple have.
There are clear benefits to a society for enacting controls on marriage. The government sets limits on when people can marry to encourage responsible child rearing from those who are deemed mature enough to handle the task and commitment. The government enacts a form of population control by outlawing polygamous marriages so that our population doesn’t explode so fast that we can’t provide the resources to properly maintain it. Incestuous marriages are outlawed because of the genetic problems involved with offspring.
A homosexual marriage cannot produce offspring of their own accord. However there are possibilities involving sperm donors and in vitro fertilization. But encouraging homosexual reproduction is encouraging homosexual genetics and children born to these unions will be homosexual and thus incapable of naturally producing offspring. There is also the option of adoption but this is simply taking heterosexual offspring and transferring parenting to a homosexual couple. This means it now takes four people to produce one child. Clearly homosexual adoption and childbearing are very inefficient ways to maintain a population.
Marriage is not a civil right but is an institution to encourage reproduction and responsible child rearing for the perpetuation of the society. It is entirely the business of government to ensure the survival of its citizens and to do so marriage must be clearly defined for the benefit of society. If the government endorses homosexual marriage the population will begin to contract and eventually weaken and either cease to exist or be taken over by a more powerful society with the proper people resources.
If we allow homosexual marriage we will have to eventually allow the entire list of other types of marriages I mentioned above. Do we see that being beneficial for mankind?
The church’s position is that God wants to send children into the world to give them a human experience. Allowing SSM reduces the incentive and foundational framework for encouraging reproduction. So while people and even animals in the wild may practice homosexual relationships it is not the way for God or a government to get people to reproduce. Unlike some animals we can’t reproduce a-sexually it takes a man and a woman. So if people want to have sexual relations outside of a heterosexual relationship, no one can or will stop them (not even God because of agency). Some will call it a sin but what they are saying by calling it that is it’s contrary to the way God would have them act. There’s nothing wrong with people exercising their agency. That’s why God gave it to us. We as the LDS church hope people use their agency to further God’s plan for us and bring children into the world under the covenant.
Some may argue that many Heterosexual couples are unable to reproduce and that proves all reproduction based arguments invalid. I would argue that there are many cases in which conspiring “men” have utilized their agency to play with the hormones of peoples’ bodies in such ways that can cause lots of havoc on the ability to reproduce (that’s a whole other topic involving the food supply, medicine and such. Second, not every heterosexual person gets married in this life even if they dearly want to. So lots of heterosexual people are unable to reproduce within the bonds of marriage.
Lastly1. I love everyone as brothers and sisters regardless of their sexual orientation.
2. I think those who wish to practice or support homosexuality in a sexual nature would be served better and happier not being numbered within the LDS church.
3. I do not think we should discriminate against or turn away anyone in the church in allowing them to worship or participate provided they live within the bounds of the LOC.
4. Because reproduction is so essential to God’s plan one’s gender is crucial and eternal. A sexual preference does not define gender, only sexual “equipment” does. Feelings/preferences whether genetically based or not, homosexual or heterosexual based are the natural “man” that we are suppose to overcome. Overcoming the “flesh” is a big part of the plan of salvation.
5. Whether someone is practicing their agency because their nature/genetics or nurture compels them to practice this way is a moot point. Just because nature/nurture compels a heterosexual man to want to have sex with any attractive woman who walks by, doesn’t mean he should.
6. The Church will never practice homosexual marriage. There’s no precedent for the change. All changes in policy in the modern church (blacks & the priesthood/Polygamy/Food Restrictions/etc.) have been rooted in what’s best for the particular time and place and have a strong scriptural basis. Throughout time, homosexuality has been considered a “sin.”
jcl, That was well written and I’m sure will generate some responses, as this topic is an interesting one.
My position is that for the most part, I agree with most of the things you’ve said, and while difficult to fully see what the ramifications to society would be, I do think the reproduction aspect of society is the basis for why government currently provides licenses for marriage (right or wrong, I think that is what it is based on).
The only thing I completely disagree with is your last point:
Quote:6. The Church will never practice homosexual marriage. There’s no precedent for the change. All changes in policy in the modern church (blacks & the priesthood/Polygamy/Food Restrictions/etc.) have been rooted in what’s best for the particular time and place and have a strong scriptural basis. Throughout time, homosexuality has been considered a “sin.”
1. I don’t see strong scriptural basis for the prior changes that were made
2. “What’s best for the particular time” destroys your entire prior arguments.
If the rest of society moves to accept these marriages, there will be considerable pressure for the LDS church and other religions to not discriminate or potentially lose status by the laws of our government. It will not be unlike the pressure to bend on polygamy.
I personally don’t feel homosexual marriage is part of God’s plan, but have begun to see it no different than common law marriage. Two people living together who love eachother, but from a religious perspective I teach my kids it is a sin in God’s eyes.
Thanks Heber13 My point for #6 was heavily edited down to what in retrospect was probably a badly written sentence. Here’s a more thorough discussion on my view:
I believe the only precedent you can logically glean from a study of history and the scriptures is that the church will not change on SSM:
PolygamyIt’s been pointed out that because the church has changed it’s stance on the issue of Polygamy they say the church can and probably will change on SSM. What this argument fails to consider is that throughout both Modern LDS history and in ancient scripture, that we profess to try and follow, Polygamy has been instituted and revoked many times. I see Polygamy as being a way God quickly builds a people when needed and then revoked when population control is needed. This is why the conflicts between many scriptures and revelations as to if Polygamy is legal or not. It simply depends on the time and God’s purposes for that generation.
Blacks and the PriesthoodAnother reason people think the church will change on SSM is because of the change in giving Blacks the Priesthood. At least 3 blacks had been given the priesthood without it ever being revoked many years previous to the official change . There is no doctrinal foundation for denying the priesthood to these brothers. President McKay even called a special committee of the 12 to find out if there was a sound scriptural basis for the ban sometime in the mid 1950’s. They couldn’t find one and called it a practice but decided the church was not ready for such a big change yet. I personally believe it was a protection to the church considering the anti-black persecution that took place throughout the US during the civil rights movement. Had we extended the priesthood at that time I imagine we’d have had buildings burned, members mobbed and even killed, etc.
Mosaic Law changesThe food restrictions and entire law was not given to the Israelites until they were wondering in the wilderness. What did they do before this? We don’t know but if they hadn’t been told not to, I’d imagine they did eat pork. I believe this law was a protection and even more of a recommendation because of unsuitable preparation methods to kill bacterias and such. The WOW is another example of dietary recommendations instituted for protections which not all generations of time have followed.
Precedent for SSM?So as illustrated above there was lots of precedent in the church to make changes on those issues (and you could make a similar case for any of the other changes). For SSM there is no basis in scriptures for allowing it but in fact much against it. There are many scriptures that God does not want homosexual relations among his people. See the topical guide in your scriptures on homosexuality for a long list.
Heber13 wrote:jcl,
If the rest of society moves to accept these marriages, there will be considerable pressure for the LDS church and other religions to not discriminate or potentially lose status by the laws of our government. It will not be unlike the pressure to bend on polygamy.
I see polygamy only having been temporarily instituted to quickly build the church. So while social pressure may have quickened it’s end, it would have ended anyway by commandment from God later. Thus I see social pressure and status concerns not so unlike saying the Church is going to one day change it’s belief in God to atheism because that’s the prevailing popular belief. I believe there are certain fundamental beliefs at the core of the Church that identifies it as a religion and without them it’s no longer a religion.Excellent response. I am in agreement with your main point that SSM is against Mormon Doctrine and I don’t foresee temple homosexual sealings. (Why am I challenging you? I feel like JMB275 and swimordie should be making these responses to challenge your post…not me – I’m in your camp…I’m sure they’ll pitch in soon, then I’ll switch over to your side challenge them, ok? 😳 )Totally agree with the way you worded polygamy. I do not think it is an eternal requirement, despite some people’s interpretations of D&C scriptures. Your response explains the Jacob 3:5 scripture as well. All said, I agree with you on polygamy, but just note that it does show that at one point in time when people thought it was a celestial requirement and it would never change no matter the government did, well…it changed and they left the church over it, so we now in retrospect can say it can change. You can’t say that doesn’t open the door just a smidge that the possibility of SSM could change, can you?
I think for the rest of it, the issue we’ve debated on this site was not Pro-SSM or Anti-SSM, but the issue has been the Church’s role in Prop 8 or Prop 102 (is that right for the Arizona one?).
Even if we agree that homosexuality is a sin, based on Leviticus and like adultery is considered sin, what is the role of the church in the political process?
I have no time right now, but I just need to point out that even the Church doesn’t consider homosexuality (the orientation) to be “sin”. It is homosexual activity, as one manifestation of extra-marital sexual activity, that is considered sin. Also, before this takes off too much, I would suggest that everyone read the existing thread on Prop 8 and SSM – since it has 118 comments and much of this has been covered there:Please don’t get me wrong. I think this is a valuable and important topic. Honestly, I just don’t want anyone to have to re-type much of what they wrote in the other thread.
There are some very thoughtful things written there, and it would be a shame for new members to miss that conversation.I’d like this thread to focus on the possibility of change, not the overall topic of homosexuality or SSM. I agree with Ray. We can start this as a new thread, but it needs to be focused on change. Can the Church change? How could it theologically morph to encompass SSA? Will the Church ever change? How do we individually change our diverse views to adapt to the direction the Church is headed. Let’s avoid a debate on the merits of SSM and Prop 8. Those belong in the other thread.
jcl wrote:6. The Church will never practice homosexual marriage. There’s no precedent for the change. All changes in policy in the modern church (blacks & the priesthood/Polygamy/Food Restrictions/etc.) have been rooted in what’s best for the particular time and place and have a strong scriptural basis. Throughout time, homosexuality has been considered a “sin.”
JCL, you listed some of the most prominent changes that have happened in the past. Lots has changed. Based on that historical observation, I try to detach from having expectations on stability or change. Betting on the side of “never” is a pretty risky bet IMO based on our track record.
jcl wrote:I see polygamy only having been temporarily instituted to quickly build the church. So while social pressure may have quickened it’s end, it would have ended anyway by commandment from God later. Thus I see social pressure and status concerns not so unlike saying the Church is going to one day change it’s belief in God to atheism because that’s the prevailing popular belief. I believe there are certain fundamental beliefs at the core of the Church that identifies it as a religion and without them it’s no longer a religion.
There are lots of reasons and motivations for our past practice of polygamy. We can choose to focus on one aspect that is more palatable. That is an effective reconciliation strategy. The Church did grow. Polygamy did solidify us as a new unique culture in frontier America. All those things happened.
But the religous leaders were teaching it as an eternal requirement, forever and ever, revealed again to mankind. They believed and taught that families had to practice this belief or they were NOT elligible to receive the highest glory possible in the Celestial Kingdom.
All that changed in a single generation when the Church was threatened by the Federal Gov’t. When all the Church’s assets were near being confiscated, and congress would not seat Utah’s senators … Wilford Woodruf found a way to get that guidance from on high
😯 Very good moderating to get this thread a direction apart from the prior discussions. Good clarification that homosexual orientation isn’t a sin, but the act would be a sin, according to the church.
So would the church ever change its stance that the act is a sin?
Is there precedence that any other sin has been changed to not being a sin anymore? Leave out the whole Mosaic law which was replaced with the new law. Since Christ set up His church (New Testament laws), then skip the Great Apostacy days when as mormons we don’t feel the definitions set by the churches during those times had authority to declare what was or was not sin, but picking up again from the Restoration and the modern church, has there been anything that was by policy declared a sin, and now is no longer something you have to repent for?
I can’t think of any. Perhaps some bishops or leaders taught some things, like caffeine soda or oral s3x, but it was never a church policy that it was a sin, was it?
The reason I ask is, if the church has redefined sins in the past, and now things that used to require confession and repentance no longer requires it, then there is a precedence that homosexual acts could be changed and not considered part of the law of chastity. Not saying it will happen, but it COULD theoretically happen.
I have a feeling I am tugging this in a different direction than JCL intended. JCL, in 140 characters or less (twitter length), what is the major concept you would like to discuss? There’s a lot of meat to digest in your original post and the first reply. Let’s narrow the focus and shoot something with this laser beam!
jcl wrote:It is entirely the business of government to ensure the survival of its citizens and to do so marriage must be clearly defined for the benefit of society. If the government endorses homosexual marriage the population will begin to contract and eventually weaken and either cease to exist or be taken over by a more powerful society with the proper people resources.
We–the people–are the government. It is our job to do what we can to survive as a species. Does allowing gay marriage create a risk for our species? It’s difficult to argue that it does. Whether gay people can get married or not, they still generally don’t add to the population. They may procreate through unorthodox means, but in general, married or not, gay couples don’t create kids. I know a few gay people quite well, and as far as I–or they–can tell, they’ve always been attracted to the same sex. Does that mean they were born gay? Who knows, but it seems likely that most gay people are biologically predisposed to find the same sex attractive. Neuroscience studies are showing that gay men respond to men the way females do, at various levels of attraction. How much of a gay man’s orientation is driven by how he was raised? Is there a gay gene? If so, are there certain things that activate this gene, either in the womb, or throughout life? As science continues to advance, lots of these questions will get answered. A good book about the history of homosexuality, and its relation to Mormonism, is written by D. Michael Quinn “Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A MORMON EXAMPLE”.
There aren’t a lot of convincing arguments against gay marriage. I personally believe–and I feel like science is and will continue to back me up–that over the next 10-20 years, we will realize sexual orientation is primarily biological. We will realize that most gay people are born “gay” and that denying them the right to marry becomes a civil rights issue if this is the case. If sexual orientation is biological, like skin or eye color, choosing favor one orientation over another is wrong. Opposition to gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, is driven by outdated religious thought about sex. I’m married to a woman; I’m as heterosexual as it gets, but I don’t feel like allowing same-sex marriage does anything to damage or endanger my marriage. We shouldn’t make laws for an entire society that are driven primarily by archaic notions of right and wrong. In the 60’s, interracial marriage was illegal in a lot of states, and frowned upon by the Church. That seems like a bigoted viewpoint now–it was–and that’s how opposition to same-sex marriage will look down the road.
wordsleuth23 wrote:
I know a few gay people quite well, and as far as I–or they–can tell, they’ve always been attracted to the same sex. Does that mean they were born gay? Who knows, but it seems likely that most gay people are biologically predisposed to find the same sex attractive.Great post Steve! I agree with everything you said, but I want to comment on this topic. Like many, I have family and friends that are gay. They always have been. I took to the scientific and medical studies to learn the cause, and everything I’ve read that is done well supports the biological basis. There is a lot out there that is “sponsored” (funded) by purpose-driven groups…mostly religious. Much more work needs to be done, but it appears the biological foundation is quite probable.
With this information, I see all churches (including LDS) softening their stance on gay relationships. The LDS church has already evolved dramatically with the statement “it is not a sin to BE gay, just don’t act on it.”
Like most other doctrinal changes in the church’ history, it will change with the times and the evidence. Unfortunately, many are hurt today with the stance (very high suicide rate in the LDS young male population), and that might become part of the impetus for the church to change. A politically active church doesn’t like bad press…and the “temple kissers” know it!
Interracial marriage WAS considered a very bad sin at least from Brigham Young to what? the lifting of the “priesthood ban”. BY considered an interracial marriage worth of the death penalty according to one statement in Journal of Discourses. I’m sorry, but I see that as a huge, mammoth, earth shattering change! Sure, it came over lots and lots of time, but it did come.
Yes, they used to ask married couples about oral s3x in temple recommend interviews church wide. That indicates to me it was viewed as breaking the law of chastity WITHIN a marriage. Now, they no longer ask that or any specific questions other than LOC. I guess that changed, or the enforcement of it did.
I’ve said it in another thread and I’ll say it again…The church has changed drastically on just about every principle or doctrine imaginable since 1830. Call it “line upon line” if you want or caving to social pressures. Either way major changes are possible. I only say this because it has helped strengthen my testimony in Christ to realize it.
That said, I also feel that we touched on the fact in the other thread that the churches temple endowment is totally set up for hetero people. So, we have to concede that a change this big would possibly necessitate some changes to parts of the endowment. HEY! Maybe we’ll all get to sit together instead of seperated!
Anyway, I have lots more thoughts on carnal comandments versus the new covenant, but it might go too tangent here…
While we wait for jcl to give us his response, I thought I’d give you all Stephen Colbert’s take on Mormonism: Quote:I’ll give the Mormons this: They know which way the wind blows. When America decided that polygamy wasn’t the way to go, the Mormons changed their ways and banned it. They had similar changes in policy when public opnion turned against the traditions of massacring pioneers and believing that all Black people are evil. Pretty much whenever the general populace decides that Mormons are a sinful crazy cult, their leader receives a message straight from God that makes everything OK. This practice continues to this day; you can see it in the way that Mitt Romney was pro-choice when he was running for governor of Massachussetts, but was divinely inspired to become pro-life when he was running for the Republican nomination for president.
On the minus side, you could be ex-communicated by Donny Osmond.
Stephen Colbert, ‘I Am America (and so can you!)”, p. 55-6.I don’t know if I’m happy he knows enough about Mormons to include it in his book, or if I’m offended he paints an exaggerated picture of Mormons as flip-floppers?? Regardless, there is a view that Mormons change over time when needed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.