LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

Yes, I believe once we advance far enough in science we will find the root cause of Mormonism to be an undesirable trait and treat it as such. call it eugenics or whatever you want it makes no difference to me. I am not advocating killing or harming those suffering from Mormon beliefs. But if there were some sort of "cure" (weither it be through genetics or physicological means) created by scientific means I think it would be good for society as a whole. And on that note I thinkt here are a lot of undesirable traits that we could eventually get rid of like genetic causes for obesity, heart disease, mental deficiencies, and other disorders. I view those traits as undesireable and unnessecary.
Now again, i am not advocating forcing anything on anyone. This is strictly something that if available, people could choose to participate in or not. It would be completely up to them.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think it would be any different for them than a heterosexual unmarried couple

But, you didn't really understand the question i posed to him. From an LDS perspective marriage is ordained of God and is the only way for us to achieve our full potential. What i am asking him is, from an LDS point of view does he believe that a homosexual couple has the same potential that a heterosexual couple has in the eyes of God?

Do you believe it has the same potential as an infertile heterosexual couple, from your LDS point of view?

 

[Autodidact]

You do realize that this is a "slippery slope" into forcing others to worship in a seemingly "politcially correct" manner. (as in punishing religious establishments for not recognizing homosexual marriages or preaching against homosexual behavior) don't you?

No, it has nothing to do with forcing any religion to do anything, where on earth did you get that idea? In fact, it would empower the many religious establishments that now consecrate same-sex marriages to have them recognized by the law. And those that do not would not have a problem.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not implying or saying that we should force anyone's behavior in a certain way. If they so choose to be in a Mormon church then that is completely up to them. But that in no way dictates that we make special concessions for someone who chooses to behave in an atypical fashion.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not implying or saying that we should force anyone's behavior in a certain way. If they so choose to be in a homosexual relationship then that is completely up to them. But that in no way dictates that we make special concessions for someone who chooses to behave in an atypical fashion.

So you consider getting married or recognizing someone else's marriage a special concession?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, I got your intended meaning. What I was trying to get at is that the question of whether God likes opposite-sex marriage better than same-sex marriage is irrelevant in the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not, because the same-sex marriage debate is about whether married same-sex couples are better than unmarried same-sex couples, not about whether same-sex couples are better than opposite-sex couples.

You want a gay man to be with a woman instead? Well, it doesn't matter, because it's not going to happen regardless of what happens with same-sex marriage. The same-sex marriage debate is entirely about how the law should treat that man's relationship, not about some fantastic idea that legislation can magically make him straight.

So... as I tried to get at before: forget about opposite-sex marriage. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever happens with same-sex marriage, it will have no effect on the rate at which opposite-sex couples marry. If you think that God's opinion matters on this issue, then ask yourself about what he would prefer between the only two options that are actually on the table:

- married same-sex couples
- unmarried same-sex couples

Anything outside of this narrow scope is a sunk cost... a factor that's common to both options, so therefore not a valid basis for deciding between those options.

It's interesting that opposition of same-sex marriage under the law is unreasonable even if one adopts the view that homosexuality is sinful. I think you've demonstrated this well, Penguin, although there are also other arguments that lead to the conclusion same-sex marriage should be legal, without assuming moral sanction for same-sex relationships, such as arguments for separation of church and state, privacy, and gender equality.

It reminds me of those who supported "separate but equal", the argument that segregation was wrong was irresistible given the manifest inequalities, even if one adopted the view that segregating races was okay in principle. Yet supporters of segregation carried on, without a coherent argument, but plenty of passion.

When supporters lower their heads and carry on the cause, even when their own assumptions and beliefs contradict their aims -- this is a symptom of prejudice. It's not merely a matter of two sides with a difference of opinion. Segregation was not merely a difference of opinion, and neither is the LGBT rights debate, one side really is prejudiced here and that's driving their passion, not logic and reason.

 

[dallas1125]

No, it has nothing to do with forcing any religion to do anything, where on earth did you get that idea? In fact, it would empower the many religious establishments that now consecrate same-sex marriages to have them recognized by the law. And those that do not would not have a problem.

Well, banning homosexuality is forcing religious beliefs upon others, legalizing it has the possibility of doing it too.

Since the LDS dont agree with with it, we wont perform gay marriages inside our temples. Im all for legalizing gay marriage, as long as churches are not forced to marry homosexuals.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, banning homosexuality is forcing religious beliefs upon others, legalizing it has the possibility of doing it too.

Since the LDS dont agree with with it, we wont perform gay marriages inside our temples. Im all for legalizing gay marriage, as long as churches are not forced to marry homosexuals.

This has never been contemplated, is not part of any such proposal or legislation, and could not be done under the Constitution. For example, in Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal, Mormon churches are not required to perform same-sex weddings.

This is a scare tactic of the religious demagogues. Not that you are one, rather they have conveyed this impression, which you have gotten.

But I do think that 50 years from now the Mormon Church will be performing same-sex weddings. It's kinda like that Black Priesthood thing, IMO.

 

[dallas1125]

This has never been contemplated, is not part of any such proposal or legislation, and could not be done under the Constitution. For example, in Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal, Mormon churches are not required to perform same-sex weddings.

This is a scare tactic of the religious demagogues. Not that you are one, rather they have conveyed this impression, which you have gotten.

But I do think that 50 years from now the Mormon Church will be performing same-sex weddings. It's kinda like that Black Priesthood thing, IMO.

Actually, its not the same as the black priesthood thing.

I doubt the possibility that churches will be required to marry same sex individuals. It still is a possibility though. I bet you that when same sex marriage is legalized there will be lawsuits against churches. All I want in the bill that legalizes it, is a recognition that we can reserve our freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the constitution.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes, I believe once we advance far enough in science we will find the root cause of Mormonism to be an undesirable trait and treat it as such. call it eugenics or whatever you want it makes no difference to me. I am not advocating killing or harming those suffering from Mormon beliefs. But if there were some sort of "cure" (weither it be through genetics or physicological means) created by scientific means I think it would be good for society as a whole. And on that note I thinkt here are a lot of undesirable traits that we could eventually get rid of like genetic causes for obesity, heart disease, mental deficiencies, and other disorders. I view those traits as undesireable and unnessecary.
Now again, i am not advocating forcing anything on anyone. This is strictly something that if available, people could choose to participate in or not. It would be completely up to them.

It's funny how you compare homosexuality to Mormonism. Mormonism is a choice yet i seem to recall you advocating that homosexuality is not a choice. Lets compare apples to apples shall we?

 

[madhatter85]

Actually, its not the same as the black priesthood thing.

I doubt the possibility that churches will be required to marry same sex individuals. It still is a possibility though. I bet you that when same sex marriage is legalized there will be lawsuits against churches. All I want in the bill that legalizes it, is a recognition that we can reserve our freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the constitution.

Then you do recognize the very real possibility that your ideal situation will not happen?

Is it really worth the risk to you? It is not to me.

 

[dallas1125]

Then you do recognize the very real possibility that your ideal situation will not happen?

Is it really worth the risk to you? It is not to me.

I actually think the ideal situation can happen. It all depends on the leaders. We need people to stop taking extremes on both sides of the issue and come together in the middle.

 

[madhatter85]

Do you believe it has the same potential as an infertile heterosexual couple, from your LDS point of view?

Absolutely, a married man and woman tgether have the same potential together in the eyes of God regardless of fertility situation. Because it is a Man and a Woman together.

1st Corinthains 11:
11. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 

[madhatter85]

I actually think the ideal situation can happen. It all depends on the leaders. We need people to stop taking extremes on both sides of the issue and come together in the middle.

Academically, I agree that the ideal situation would be a fair compromise as long as it did not have even the slightest, most remote chance of affecting our worship. But it will not happen. Not with the current polarization e see in American politics. the last 2 years have been the most partisan governmental years I have ever seen in a while.

Philosophically, I believe the acceptance of it as a "normal behavior" will see dire consequences in our society as a whole.

Ether 2 9-12

9. And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. 10. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.
11. And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.
12. Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

It is just one step closer to the fullness of iniquity in my book.

 

[happyhummingbird]

Absolutely, a married man and woman tgether have the same potential together in the eyes of God regardless of fertility situation. Because it is a Man and a Woman together.

Yet, at one point the LDS Church discouraged interracial marriage/dating, didn't give black men the priesthood and practiced polygamy. I highly doubt you know the whole mind of your "god".

 

[dallas1125]

Yet, at one point the LDS Church discouraged interracial marriage/dating, didn't give black men the priesthood and practiced polygamy. I highly doubt you know the whole mind of your "god".

That is a different issue than gay marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, its not the same as the black priesthood thing.

I doubt the possibility that churches will be required to marry same sex individuals. It still is a possibility though. I bet you that when same sex marriage is legalized there will be lawsuits against churches. All I want in the bill that legalizes it, is a recognition that we can reserve our freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the constitution.

It is not a possibility. Same-sex marriage is legal in 5 states, and there have been no lawsuits. It would violate the Constitution. That recognition has been in the bills that have been proposed.

 

[Autodidact]

It's funny how you compare homosexuality to Mormonism. Mormonism is a choice yet i seem to recall you advocating that homosexuality is not a choice. Lets compare apples to apples shall we?

You recall incorrectly.

 

[Autodidact]

Then you do recognize the very real possibility that your ideal situation will not happen?

Is it really worth the risk to you? It is not to me.

There is no such risk; it's a scare tactic. I remind you that same-sex marriage is legal in 5 states. Is your church in Iowa performing same sex marriage?

 

[Autodidact]

I actually think the ideal situation can happen. It all depends on the leaders. We need people to stop taking extremes on both sides of the issue and come together in the middle.

It's not ideal; it's actual, right now, in 5 states. This is the only way it can be done in the U.S. I don't believe Catholic Churches in those Catholic countries that have legalized same-sex marriage is performing them either. It's a smokescreen.