Oaks on religious freedom

[LA Ute]

I don't think anyone should be fired for their religious or political beliefs. On the other hand, I don't think people have to ignore either of those things in who they chose to do business with. I am ambivalent here because I know many good people who this happened to and I certainly would not have wanted that to be so. I will answer this way however, if there were a movement afoot in our country that grew powerful enough to, through their representatives, get a constitutional amendment voted on by the states that would affectively repeal Loving v. Virginia I would very intensely desire to see them shamed, would not do business with them and would encourage others not to do so. So if I'm honest, the tactic does not bother me if I think the issue is important enough (very subjective, I know).

Bringing us 'round once again to the core question: Is reserving marriage for one man and one woman equivalent to reserving marriage for a man and woman of the same race? A lot depends on which way public opinion goes on that question.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Bringing us 'round once again to the core question: Is reserving marriage for one man and one woman equivalent to reserving marriage for a man and woman of the same race? A lot depends on which way public opinion goes on that question.

It took a least two centuries for interracial marriages to be accepted by mainstream religion. I am betting the tide on same sex marriage will swing much quicker. People are much more willing to challenge their own religion. IMO, the pressures for the lds church to change their stance will be more internal than external.

[Maximus]

Except homosexual relations has always been considered a sin. Being black has not been.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Except homosexual relations has always been considered a sin. Being black has not been.

Interracial marriage was considered a sin for centuries. That is the question put forth by LA Ute.

[Maximus]

Yes, but black people having sex has never been considered a sin. Gay sex has always been considered a sin. I dont think public opinion will change that. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Yes, but black people having sex has never been considered a sin. Gay sex has always been considered a sin. I dont think public opinion will change that. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

I would disagree. I look at how much public sentiment has changed in the last 20 years. In 1990 would anyone have guessed there would be religious organizations performing civil unions, that a vote like prop 8 would be supported as it was(heck that it would even have been on a ballot). If the question of same sex marriage would have been put to a national vote in1990, I bet the margin would have been 90-10 against. Now it is closer to 60-40 against. That is a real shift in 2 decades that I would not have predicted. Where do you think it will be in another 2 decades?

[Maximus]

I would disagree. I look at how much public sentiment has changed in the last 20 years. In 1990 would anyone have guessed there would be religious organizations performing civil unions, that a vote like prop 8 would be supported as it was(heck that it would even have been on a ballot). If the question of same sex marriage would have been put to a national vote in1990, I bet the margin would have been 90-10 against. Now it is closer to 60-40 against. That is a real shift in 2 decades that I would not have predicted. Where do you think it will be in another 2 decades?

Yes I realize gay marriage will probably be legal in the next decades. My point was not that the public won't allow gay marriage but that the church won't all of asudden think gay sex is not a sin simply because the public thinks gay marriage should be legal. The church may just stop being against gays being allowed to marry civily but will never say gay sex is not a sin and gay marriage is now allowed in the temple

[Paperback Writer]

Yes I realize gay marriage will probably be legal in the next decades. My point was not that the public won't allow gay marriage but that the church won't all of asudden think gay sex is not a sin simply because the public thinks gay marriage should be legal. The church may just stop being against gays being allowed to marry civily but will never say gay sex is not a sin and gay marriage is now allowed in the temple

Never is a long, long time. In my view, I'm not so certain that the church will never say gay sex is not a sin. So it will be OK to be married civilly to someone of the same sex (because its legal) but not OK to have sex??? Currently, the LDS church has an easy out - sex within marriage is OK but not OK outside of marriage. That could change and I can see a time when the LDS church recognizes (but does not preform) same sex marriages and deems gay sex OK as long as it is within marriage.

[tooblue]

Since you brought it up... it is going to be interesting to see how the Canadian court rules on the recent challenge on its anti-polygamy law. It seems to me a lot of the same arguments can be applied to both same-sex and polygamous marriages (maybe we should just generalize and call them "alternative marriages"):

I've talked about this in other threads but I am certain that some time in the next year or two Polygamy will be legalized in Canada. Such laws will open the doors for the legalization of polygamy in certain states just as happened with Gay marriage.

[LA Ute]

Never is a long, long time. In my view, I'm not so certain that the church will never say gay sex is not a sin. So it will be OK to be married civilly to someone of the same sex (because its legal) but not OK to have sex??? Currently, the LDS church has an easy out - sex within marriage is OK but not OK outside of marriage. That could change and I can see a time when the LDS church recognizes (but does not preform) same sex marriages and deems gay sex OK as long as it is within marriage.

What will the church say when children of a same-sex couple want to do the temple sealings for their deceased parents? Kind of an interesting brain-teaser. I don't know the answer.

[Uncle Ted]

I've talked about this in other threads but I am certain that some time in the next year or two Polygamy will be legalized in Canada. Such laws will open the doors for the legalization of polygamy in certain states just as happened with Gay marriage.

I don't recall your postings in other threads but it seems to me that the question of the legalization of polygamy (and, in general, all forms of alternative marriage sooner or later) needs to be considered after same-sex marriage is recognized. What is happening in Canada confirms this, IMO. Of course, bringing up polygamy in the news just opens a wound for the church that never seems to heal. This makes me wonder if one of the reasons the church is pushing so hard for marriage to be defined legally is the leaders don't want to deal with all the negative PR associated with polygamy again. With same-sex marriage they, at least, have some other churches as allies. When polygamy comes up people usually only associate it with one church, at least in this country.

[Indy Coug]

The church, IMO, is getting marginalized (and will become ever more marginalized on this issue and in general as time passes) because people understand its position perfectly and find it repugnant.

I'm unaware of anyone that understands its position perfectly.

[Tim]

Never is a long, long time. In my view, I'm not so certain that the church will never say gay sex is not a sin. So it will be OK to be married civilly to someone of the same sex (because its legal) but not OK to have sex??? Currently, the LDS church has an easy out - sex within marriage is OK but not OK outside of marriage. That could change and I can see a time when the LDS church recognizes (but does not preform) same sex marriages and deems gay sex OK as long as it is within marriage.

If baptisms come to a halt and people start exiting the church at a greater rate because of their disagreement with the church's stance on gay marriage, the church will change. Every church changes when people start leaving.

[Indy Coug]

If baptisms come to a halt and people start exiting the church at a greater rate because of their disagreement with the church's stance on gay marriage, the church will change. Every church changes when people start leaving.

Do you really think that's how the church operates? Is that why we're in the middle of the nth dispensation over the last several thousand years?

[Maximus]

Would the church declare sex before marriage to be okay if the world wanted it to?

The church does not operate according to what the world.believes.