LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[dallas1125]

What part?

From my limited knowledge, I was under the impression that it was not a choice.

 

[happyhummingbird]

I disagree, I am glad the first presidency has taken no stance. Let the members think for themselves.

The Church did take a stance, Prop 8? What this whole thread kind of is about.

 

[happyhummingbird]

The Church did take a stance, Prop 8? What this whole thread kind of is about.

But, on the issue of choice, they didn't, but it seems to reason that if they are against gay marriage because it is immoral, and it isn't a choice, they need to be against other "immoral" things as well. Does that make sense?

 

[dallas1125]

But, on the issue of choice, they didn't, but it seems to reason that if they are against gay marriage because it is immoral, and it isn't a choice, they need to be against other "immoral" things as well. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I was referring to choice. As for the churches stance on gay marriage, I dont think that they will change the view that it is a sin and therefore needs to be a choice. I think they will change their position on whether it should be legal or not.

 

[happyhummingbird]

Yeah, I was referring to choice. As for the churches stance on gay marriage, I dont think that they will change the view that it is a sin and therefore needs to be a choice. I think they will change their position on whether it should be legal or not.

Of course they will.

The conveniently did it with polygamy, blacks & the priesthood and a few other issues. It wouldn't surprise me if they made a complete change in 50-100 years so they would "fit" in.

 

[Watchmen]

Of course they will.

The conveniently did it with polygamy, blacks & the priesthood and a few other issues. It wouldn't surprise me if they made a complete change in 50-100 years so they would "fit" in.

"Blacks and the priesthood" issue was addressed many years after the civil rights movement.

Thoughts?

 

[happyhummingbird]

"Blacks and the priesthood" issue was addressed many years after the civil rights movement.

Thoughts?

Yes it was.

There are many issues that they "conveinently" changed when the rest of the world had changed their opinions. I think that in the future that this is just as possible seeing the history of the Church.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes it was.

There are many issues that they "conveinently" changed when the rest of the world had changed their opinions. I think that in the future that this is just as possible seeing the history of the Church.

I guess you missed my point. The church didn't change during the height of pressure. It was a long time after.

 

[Autodidact]

"Blacks and the priesthood" issue was addressed many years after the civil rights movement.

Thoughts?

Yes, the morality of LDS leadership is usually decades behind the nation. That's why I expect to see it in 50 years, long after the rest of the country has legalized it.

 

[dallas1125]

Yes, the morality of LDS leadership is usually decades behind the nation. That's why I expect to see it in 50 years, long after the rest of the country has legalized it.

What is going to happen (most likely) is that the church will always keep its stance that it is a sin. What will change is the attitude about whether it should be legalized or not. Right now the LDS church leaders are old fashioned older men who will fight letting it get legalized. Over time, when the older leaders die and are filled with younger ones, the church will be fine with it being legalized.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not all LDS believe it's a sin, or that homosexuals should be excluded from the church. There are even "gay Mormons".

 

[dallas1125]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not all LDS believe it's a sin, or that homosexuals should be excluded from the church. There are even "gay Mormons".

True, but in the CoJCoLDS its about 95% see it as a sin. As for them being excluded from church, there are many who are opposed to that. I would be surprised to see a majority that think homosexuals should be excluded. For me, I dont think you should be excluded. (I dont know whether I consider it a sin or not FYI.) Assuming a mormon thinks it is a sin, it would be hypocritical for them to exclude you, as the purpose for the LDS sacrament is cleansing ourselves from sin. Plus that no human being is without sin and it would be unfair for them to "cast the first stone."

 

[Magic Man]

What is going to happen (most likely) is that the church will always keep its stance that it is a sin. What will change is the attitude about whether it should be legalized or not. Right now the LDS church leaders are old fashioned older men who will fight letting it get legalized. Over time, when the older leaders die and are filled with younger ones, the church will be fine with it being legalized.

It's amazing to me that this kind of thing isn't a bigger warning sign to religious people. It seems to me the fact that the church keeps changing its stance on things as the older generations die and younger ones come in should make people question the veracity of all of the church's teachings.

 

[happyhummingbird]

It's amazing to me that this kind of thing isn't a bigger warning sign to religious people. It seems to me the fact that the church keeps changing its stance on things as the older generations die and younger ones come in should make people question the veracity of all of the church's teachings.

It's called cognitive dissonance.

 

[madhatter85]

In the LDS church, simply suffering from same-sex attraction is not a sin of itself. It is only when you act on those misplaced feelings that we consider it to be a sin.

Some LDS are confused on that point.

 

[madhatter85]

Well, it's simple. They are both groups of people who been discriminated against on the basis of something beyond their control. Whether or not homosexuality is technically a choice, it's not a choice like which car you buy. It's not like gay people one day say "Hey, I think I'll be gay. It's realization they come to, and they can't say "Hey, I don't feel like being yay, so I'm going to be straight".


Now, I find it quite interesting that you ignored my second point (again). How do you explain the fact that you want religious people to get special concessions, but then you say groups of people shouldn't get special concessions?

I never said that suffering from same-sex attraction is a choice.

We don't get special concessions. This country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom.

Regardless of whether a person is black, white asian or any other ethnicity, that person is still a person and therefore is entitled to all rights afforded to a person on the basis of his or her personhood.

Similarily, regardless of whether a person is gay, straight, bi, or any other sexual orientation, that person is still a person and therefore is entitled to all rights afforded to a person on the basis of his or her personhood.

They already have the same rights everyone else has. They are asking for extra rights based on a perceived lack of volition when it comes to behaviors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They already have the same rights everyone else has. They are asking for extra rights based on a perceived lack of volition when it comes to behaviors.

So if we banned the LDS Church for everyone across the board (it's equal! Aren't you happy?), you'd be okay with that?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom.

Episcopelians, Unitarians, and many other religions and non-religions believe in same-sex marriage. Do they get religious freedom too?

 

[madhatter85]

So if we banned the LDS Church for everyone across the board (it's equal! Aren't you happy?), you'd be okay with that?

you can do what you want because it's your forum. If i don't like the rules I don't participate

 

[madhatter85]

Episcopelians, Unitarians, and many other religions and non-religions believe in same-sex marriage. Do they get religious freedom too?

non-religions are not technically religions because they are well... non-religions.

Now, there are those who think that it's OK that's up to them. They have the right to perform any ceremonies that they wish. It doesn't mean that it is legally binding nor does it dictate acceptance of any specific behavior as a standard way of life.