Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[Green Monstah]

How can a church that purportedly bases its core fundamental beliefs on scriptures that are unequivocally racist renounce its racist policies?

Because church leaders realized they were wrong.

That's a great counterpoint, but I don't think it's quite the same. First off, I know of nowhere in scripture where it says that those who were "cursed" should be killed or that they were unable to attain salvation. On the other hand, there are scriptures in the Old Testament that prescribe capital punishment for acts of homosexuality, and Paul made clear that he believed homosexuals will not be saved.

Regarding race, there are several examples of instances where the "cursed" were closer to God than the "pure." Also, I don't believe the prohibition on priesthood was actually doctrinal (in spite of efforts on 19th and 20th-century church leaders to make it a doctrinal issue), but was a policy that was based on racist church leaders. However, the issue of homosexuality is doctrinal to its core. It's touches upon issues of marriage, chastity, eternal identity, etc. which are each fundamental to the church's teachings.

Instead of reaching for the unattainable (acceptance of homosexuality/gay marriage by the Church), I think that those who are sympathetic to the gay rights movement should focus their efforts on more attainable goals (e.g., helping to change how church members treat their gay neighbors, friends, children, parents, etc., doing our part to reach out to those who have endured being gay and Mormon and who have been left with deep emotional wounds). My ex-bro-in-law is gay and although I'm frustrated with the way he is currently handling his obligations to my sister and his four boys, I can honestly say that he experienced utter hell during his 34 years as a gay Mormon. If we can get over these smaller hurdles, perhaps we'll be in a position to more fully embrace gay Mormons in the future.

[CardiacCoug]

How can a church that purportedly bases its core fundamental beliefs on scriptures that are unequivocally anti-homosexual condone homosexuality? I sympathize with gay Mormons, and my heart aches for those I know who have suffered within the Church, but I simply don't see it changing. Those who are able to remain celibate and active participants in Church have infinitely more faith than I do.

How can a church that purportedly bases its core fundamental beliefs on scriptures that are unequivocally racist renounce its racist policies?

Because church leaders realized they were wrong.

[DapperDan]

Perhaps the LDS church should re-embrace the early Christian practice of celibacy in marriage. That way both heterosexuals and homosexuals would be on equal footing.

[Green Monstah]

Here's the incongruency of the church's position to me.

There is a history of gays being considered perverts, and being told they're gay because of choices they have made. What is very clear is that they are abnormal.

There is a huge emphasis on marriage, and families. The church uses the law of chastity to leverage young people into marrying. Over and over, we are taught that happiness comes through marriage and family. But we can't have sexual relations outside of marriage, so we have to get married.

But gays are told you cannot have that, unless you marry a woman (although they're now backing off of that), which goes against their natural sexual proclivity.

And so, we tell them to have faith (in a religion that considers them perverts), and that their happiness (i.e. intimate partnership and potential family) will come in the next life.

How can anyone be expected to have faith in a religion that considers you an outcast, if not a pervert?

How can a church that purportedly bases its core fundamental beliefs on scriptures that are unequivocally anti-homosexual condone homosexuality? I sympathize with gay Mormons, and my heart aches for those I know who have suffered within the Church, but I simply don't see it changing. Those who are able to remain celibate and active participants in Church have infinitely more faith than I do.

[Moliere]

Here's the incongruency of the church's position to me.

There is a history of gays being considered perverts, and being told they're gay because of choices they have made. What is very clear is that they are abnormal.

There is a huge emphasis on marriage, and families. The church uses the law of chastity to leverage young people into marrying. Over and over, we are taught that happiness comes through marriage and family. But we can't have sexual relations outside of marriage, so we have to get married.

But gays are told you cannot have that, unless you marry a woman (although they're now backing off of that), which goes against their natural sexual proclivity.

And so, we tell them to have faith (in a religion that considers them perverts), and that their happiness (i.e. intimate partnership and potential family) will come in the next life.

How can anyone be expected to have faith in a religion that considers you an outcast, if not a pervert?

It seems the church is trying to back off from this last statement, however they will only truly get over those considerations if they change the current interpretation of the law of chastity, which I don't see happening.

I personally have no issues with the church limiting marriage to between a man and a woman and keeping the current definition of the law of chastity. I also would have no issues if the church changed to conform to allow SGA couples to be married and full-fledged members. I do have issues with the church imposing its beliefs on people not of our faith ala Prop 8.

[CardiacCoug]

Here's the incongruency of the church's position to me.

There is a history of gays being considered perverts, and being told they're gay because of choices they have made. What is very clear is that they are abnormal.

There is a huge emphasis on marriage, and families. The church uses the law of chastity to leverage young people into marrying. Over and over, we are taught that happiness comes through marriage and family. But we can't have sexual relations outside of marriage, so we have to get married.

But gays are told you cannot have that, unless you marry a woman (although they're now backing off of that), which goes against their natural sexual proclivity.

And so, we tell them to have faith (in a religion that considers them perverts), and that their happiness (i.e. intimate partnership and potential family) will come in the next life.

How can anyone be expected to have faith in a religion that considers you an outcast, if not a pervert?

Agreed.

Recognizing gay marriage would be the thing that would allow the Church to treat gay people the same as straight people. What on earth would be wrong with allowing a gay, married person to maintain membership in the Church?

If a gay person waits until he is legally married to someone of the same gender before having sex, then he/she still gets excommunicated, right? And then Church leaders have the audacity to say they just treat everyone the same way. What a joke.

[SoCalCoug]

Here's the incongruency of the church's position to me.

There is a history of gays being considered perverts, and being told they're gay because of choices they have made. What is very clear is that they are abnormal.

There is a huge emphasis on marriage, and families. The church uses the law of chastity to leverage young people into marrying. Over and over, we are taught that happiness comes through marriage and family. But we can't have sexual relations outside of marriage, so we have to get married.

But gays are told you cannot have that, unless you marry a woman (although they're now backing off of that), which goes against their natural sexual proclivity.

And so, we tell them to have faith (in a religion that considers them perverts), and that their happiness (i.e. intimate partnership and potential family) will come in the next life.

How can anyone be expected to have faith in a religion that considers you an outcast, if not a pervert?

[Mrs. Funk]

I suppose that is one way to look at it.



No - I'm not making a slippery slope arguement. And I'm not talking about the societal perspective of legalizing gay marriage. I'm talking about the religious aspect. You have to separate the two.

From a strictly religious perspective - I'm simply disagreeing with the arguement that because the Gospel is also called the "Great Plan of Happiness", and gay people need to have a same sex relationship to be "Happy", then gay marriage should be accepted by the LDS church. Because God wants us to be happy. I don't think that arguement works. For the reasons I've already stated - there are other people with other attractions that aren't going to be accepted and therefore those folks aren't going to be happy. So we can't simply say that gay marriage should be accepted religiously for the long-term happiness of the people.

There are certainly reasons for gay marriage to be OK. Some are from a societal perspective and others are from a religious perspective. There are also reasons for gay marriage to not be OK. From both perspectives.

For instance, the "consenting adults" idea may fly from a societal perspective, but it doesn't from a religious. If all it takes in consenting adults, then why is the church against fornication or adultery, which both also include consenting adults?

I'm not sure if this is any more clear. And you are correct - lines do have to be drawn somewhere. Please understand - I'm not saying WHERE those lines should be drawn. I'm simply removing one of the arguements that says a person's happiness should be a determining factor given much weight in the religious discussion of where those lines are drawn.

I agree the religious and societal perspectives in this matter are different and may require different analyses, but it wasn't clear that your initial hypothetical was based upon that distinction. It appears I misunderstood.

I think God does want us to be happy—but what kind of happiness Heavenly Father sees for us is not necessarily what we see for ourselves. That said, I've watched my good friend who came out about two years ago struggle mightily with this—the same man who fought with his parents for permission to join the church as a teenager and served a mission and all the other "supposed-tos." I want nothing more for him to be happy and at peace. He likes men. His religion tells him his desires are a perversion. Our religion offers him very little comfort other than promise of "eternal reward" for fighting against what feels to him a fundamental part of his human makeup. I don't have answers for this friend.

I don't know that an individual's personal perception of happiness is ever given that much credence by religion in general, however. In that vein, it appears perfectly natural or at least it naturally follows that religion would ask an individual to give up "happiness" in exchange for the eternal reward. Practically speaking, though, it does very little to comfort the struggling soul trying to find equilibrium.

[Eddie]

Ok, I looked past it for as long as possible, but I can't any longer. If you're gong to continue to make arguments like the above, you should know that the "e" at the end of argue gets eaten by the attached suffix.

Also, this is how you respond when you don't have a real response.

Thank you. I will admit that my spelling has fallen victim to my reliance on automatic spellchecking programs.

I don't even want to think about my current ability level in mathematics...

[Eddie]

I think my response is fairly representative of the religious perspective. Where was I wrong? I thought you wanted to discuss the religious perspective.

Your response seemed a little more flippant and less thoughtout than is your norm.

I don't think I ever said that from a religious perspective all gays are going to hell. And I don't think that is what you believe either. I simply removed one of the arguements for gay marriage.

I'd love to hear others. Both for and against.

I'd also love to hear thoughts on the role of marriage in the eternal perspective for people who are gay. I've got a friend who describes himself as the only active LDS gay man in SLC. After conference he went into hiding from his friends because he didn't want to have to try and explain/justify Elder Packer's talk to his friends and associates. Dude dates other guys but never goes beyond that, is very clear with everyone (including his church leaders) who and what he is, and has a temple recommend. He personally believes that the Proclamation on the Family leaves room for interpretation that would include gay marriage. He also believes that before that happens it is going to take a regime change through attrition of certain LDS leadership (...cough, cough...BKP...cough, cough.)

From an LDS perspective there are folks who come to earth with great challenges - such as mental capacity disabilities - that will keep them from marrying here on earth but I don't believe will ultimately stunt their potential in the hereafter.

There have also been changes over time in the LDS church - such as Blacks and the Priesthood.

Do you believe being gay is another form of challenge to overcome and live with? Or is it something that will take time/acceptance but will ultimately be a change in church policy and/or doctrine?

I guess to me it just isn't as black and white yet as it is for others. I'm not sure what I think the answer is. Thus my ambivalence. I enjoy the discussion and hearing different perspectives that can help me clarify my own beliefs.

[Donuthole]

Is this how you respond when you don't have a real response?

I believe I said that I wasn't drawing a line or even commenting on what the law should be. I was just commenting on one of the arguements used by one side of the discussion.

I don't buy the "God wants everyone to be happy, and God made gays that way, so it must be OK" arguement. That one just doesn't fly with me.

I don't buy all of the arguements that the other side uses either. For instance, I don't buy the "slippery slope" arguement that Mrs. Funk thought I was using either.

Honestly, from a religious perspective this whole discussion has me pretty ambivalent as far as what to think. Maybe I'm one of the few folks here that hasn't made up his mind or have strong feelings one way or the other yet on the issue.

Ok, I looked past it for as long as possible, but I can't any longer. If you're gong to continue to make arguments like the above, you should know that the "e" at the end of argue gets eaten by the attached suffix.

Also, this is how you respond when you don't have a real response.

[TripletDaddy]

Is this how you respond when you don't have a real response?

I believe I said that I wasn't drawing a line or even commenting on what the law should be. I was just commenting on one of the arguements used by one side of the discussion.

I don't buy the "God wants everyone to be happy, and God made gays that way, so it must be OK" arguement. That one just doesn't fly with me.

I don't buy all of the arguements that the other side uses either. For instance, I don't buy the "slippery slope" arguement that Mrs. Funk thought I was using either.

Honestly, from a religious perspective this whole discussion has me pretty ambivalent as far as what to think. Maybe I'm one of the few folks here that hasn't made up his mind or have strong feelings one way or the other yet on the issue.

I think my response is fairly representative of the religious perspective. Where was I wrong? I thought you wanted to discuss the religious perspective.

[Eddie]

From a religious perspective, you are probably correct....gays should not be allowed to marry and they are all probably going to hell.

Is this how you respond when you don't have a real response?

I believe I said that I wasn't drawing a line or even commenting on what the law should be. I was just commenting on one of the arguements used by one side of the discussion.

I don't buy the "God wants everyone to be happy, and God made gays that way, so it must be OK" arguement. That one just doesn't fly with me.

I don't buy all of the arguements that the other side uses either. For instance, I don't buy the "slippery slope" arguement that Mrs. Funk thought I was using either.

Honestly, from a religious perspective this whole discussion has me pretty ambivalent as far as what to think. Maybe I'm one of the few folks here that hasn't made up his mind or have strong feelings one way or the other yet on the issue.

[TripletDaddy]

From a religious perspective, you are probably correct....gays should not be allowed to marry and they are all probably going to hell.

[Eddie]

"Don't feel bad, gay people. Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, and guys who enjoy sex with dogs can't be happy in this life either."

I suppose that is one way to look at it.

Yes. People who want to have sex with kids can suck it. Nobody is arguing that it is possible for "everyone to have happiness is happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in happening." It appears to me you are employing the parade of horribles or slippery slope argument that has been so popular in discussions surrounding legalizing homosexual marriage. If we allow homosexuals to get married, where's the limit to what we'll legalize? Polygamy? Incest? Sex with children? Sex with ducks?

No - I'm not making a slippery slope arguement. And I'm not talking about the societal perspective of legalizing gay marriage. I'm talking about the religious aspect. You have to separate the two.

From a strictly religious perspective - I'm simply disagreeing with the arguement that because the Gospel is also called the "Great Plan of Happiness", and gay people need to have a same sex relationship to be "Happy", then gay marriage should be accepted by the LDS church. Because God wants us to be happy. I don't think that arguement works. For the reasons I've already stated - there are other people with other attractions that aren't going to be accepted and therefore those folks aren't going to be happy. So we can't simply say that gay marriage should be accepted religiously for the long-term happiness of the people.

There are certainly reasons for gay marriage to be OK. Some are from a societal perspective and others are from a religious perspective. There are also reasons for gay marriage to not be OK. From both perspectives.

For instance, the "consenting adults" idea may fly from a societal perspective, but it doesn't from a religious. If all it takes in consenting adults, then why is the church against fornication or adultery, which both also include consenting adults?

I'm not sure if this is any more clear. And you are correct - lines do have to be drawn somewhere. Please understand - I'm not saying WHERE those lines should be drawn. I'm simply removing one of the arguements that says a person's happiness should be a determining factor given much weight in the religious discussion of where those lines are drawn.