- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Sometimes I wonder why this issue is so different from others. I mean what if I asked: -Will a smoker every be allowed to marry in the temple?
-Will people who don’t believe JS restored the gospel be allowed to marry in the temple?
-Will an admitted non-payer of tithing be allowed to marry in the temple?
-Will someone who is actively engaging in premarital sex be allowed to marry in the temple?
-Will someone who willfully chooses to not attend church meeting be allowed to marry in the temple?
We could make a huge list here. Why is gay marriage such a big sticking point compared to other rules which could also be seen as “backwards” by many?
Genetics and choice Brown. cwald wrote:Genetics and choice Brown.
I don’t follow.
Are you saying because many gay people are genetically attracted to those of the same gender, they should be exempt from the rules? My brother is genetically depressed and drawn to substance abuse. Should we allow him into the temple?
Will non-members ever be allowed to marry in the temple? Brown wrote:cwald wrote:Genetics and choice Brown.
I don’t follow.
Are you saying because many gay people are genetically attracted to those of the same gender, they should be exempt from the rules? My brother is genetically depressed and drawn to substance abuse. Should we allow him into the temple?
You’re damn right we should. If the temple is truly necessary for salvation, why wouldn’t we. If God made your brother genetically depressed and prone to substsne abuse, whose fault is it realty? God made him that way.
Two things are important to bring up: 1) Homosexuals currently can marry in the temple to a person of the opposite sex as long as they are not acting on their homosexual inclinations.
In a statement from the Mormon Church, Apostle Dallin Oaks said that marrying a woman is not a therapeutic way to change a sexual orientation, but it is an option for those that feel they can “deal” with being gay.
“Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices,” Oaks wrote in a press release. “On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.”
Perhaps the individual described by Elder Oaks could be considered bi-sexual.
2) The general consensus of the group is that temple marriage for homosexual couples would face significant challenges. The question is now about if monogamous civilly married homosexual couples could be permitted to participate at church like non-tithe payers or smokers currently do.
cwald wrote:Brown wrote:cwald wrote:Genetics and choice Brown.
I don’t follow.
Are you saying because many gay people are genetically attracted to those of the same gender, they should be exempt from the rules? My brother is genetically depressed and drawn to substance abuse. Should we allow him into the temple?
You’re damn right we should. If the temple is truly necessary for salvation, why wouldn’t we. If God made your brother genetically depressed and prone to substsne abuse, whose fault is it realty? God made him that way.
I am not opposed to same-sex marriage, because in my opinion it is a violation of a person’s civil rights not to be able to have the right to marry whomever they may want to marry. Furthermore, if we were to get into a discussion on Prop 8, my position would be that the Church had no business involving itself in the issue at all. On the other hand, acelibategay or lesbian person may be endowed just as a heterosexual person can. Genetic depression, as far as I know, is not considered to be sinful, so I’m not sure why you even mentioned it. Being prone tosubstance abuse is not sinful either. In that regard, it’s more or less in the same category as being gay. Katzpur wrote:I am not opposed to same-sex marriage, because in my opinion it is a violation of a person’s civil rights not to be able to have the right to marry whomever they may want to marry.
One positive outcome of a broadening of our concept of civil rights regarding marriage is that the practice of the Principle may once again return, at least on a small scale.
Whether it’s positive or negative, it certainly is almost inevitable if gay-marriage does become the law of the land – which is really, truly, hilariously ironic within the history of Mormonism in this country. Oh, and fwiw, this is a modern LDS-focused forum, so let’s not use the term “the principle” to mean “polygamy” – even from those few here who still believe in and/or practice it. Generally, I wouldn’t say anything about terminology, but this is one example that just isn’t “right” for this site.
Old-Timer wrote:Oh, and fwiw, this is a modern LDS-focused forum, so let’s not use the term “the principle” to mean “polygamy” – even those few here who still believe in and/or practice it. Generally, I wouldn’t say anything about terminology, but this is one example that just isn’t “right” for this site.
I understand it might cause some confusion among some readers not familiar with Gospel terminology, but I thought it was the accepted non-pejorative way of referring to this practice.
:Nope. That would be “polygamy” or “plural marriage”, generally speaking and not worrying about being exactly precise and complicated. 🙂 Old-Timer wrote:Nope. That would be “polygamy” or “plural marriage”, generally speaking and not worrying about being exactly precise and complicated.
🙂 I’m not quite sure if I’m comfortable with being instructed about the proper way to refer to a major tenet of my belief system or not. But it’s your forum.
😳 Limhah, this is an open forum for those who want to stay LDS – and “the Principle” is a phrase that currently is associated in the minds of most people who read it, used that way, with the Mormon groups who still practice polygamy. I’m not trying to instruct you on the religious principles of your faith. I’m asking that we use the terminology, in this case, that is the common usage among those who read and participate here in order to avoid mis-perceptions and misunderstandings. My request is much more of a political, practical one than a religious one.
I hope you understand that and can drop it, since it’s not central to this post.
I don’t like coded language at all. Just call a spade a spade. We are now talking about polygamy. We are now talking about plural marriage. cwald wrote:I don’t like coded language at all. Just call a spade a spade.
Fair enough. Now let’s get back to talking about “gay marriage.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.