To The Viewing Public:
I swear on a stack of Holy Bibles that annegb and I in no way colluded to make today’s posts about the same topic. My humble explanation of this phenomenon is ‘great minds think alike.’

But by abstaining, are we allowing the crazies to run the institution? What is that saying about evil thrives because good people do nothing? I just don’t know what a good person is supposed to do when I don’t like the options.

Annegb, I get that your position on marriage equality hasn’t quite evolved to the point of outright support. At the same time, it’s clear that you’re bothered by the LDS church’s (and others’) crusade on the subject. You know enough GLBT people in your life that you can’t buy into the scare tactics and fearmongering about how allowing gay or lesbian couples to wed legally would “destroy marriage.”

Perhaps I might offer a middle way. Even if you can’t quite support marrieage equality yet, you can certainly take a stand regarding those who actively crusade against it. You can share your own conflicted feelings, and how you see it as far more than a “black and white” issue. You can stand up for love, compassion, and understanding.

Exactly. In this case, I think the only one winning is Satan.

Does that mean you don’t abstain?

I don’t know how it’s done in other countries. I actually wish we could do that because then people with non-LDS (or non temple recommend holders) could see their child married. I was just throwing it out there–read it somewhere on a blog.

“I feel such uh, what is it? Sadness, dismay, ambivalence…..I can’t be the only one.”

No, you are certainly not the only one. I identify with this post completely. As a musician, I personally know plenty of SSA folks, a few who moved to another state to get married, and many more who I know struggle mightily and hurt constantly. Very few, here in Utah, who are out and well-adjusted. I’d like to believe that there is eternal truth about people with same-sex attraction that we simply don’t have yet. I’ve read about indigenous cultures who see people with gender ambiguity as super-mortal, divine gifts to the community, who round out the gender binary and bring more light and truth to pidgeon-holed cultural gender distinctions. These ideas work for me. It’s too bad that current LDS theology leaves the LGBT with nothing, less than nothing.

that’s a little freaky, but not as freaky as pretending the state has the moral authority to marry people in the first place.

To my knowledge, no one ever said the state has any moral authority at all. The state has the legal authority to marry people, so that they are treated as married in the eyes of the law. That’s all. Nothing particularly moral about that. But same sex couples would like to be treated the same way by the law as straight couples. And I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be.

That doesn’t mean any church has to open their doors to perform same sex marriages. It’s just a legal matter performed by the state.

Would they then hold all marriages outside the temple and only allow sealings after the civil marriage?

If I understand the logistics of Mormon marriages when non-members are anywhere in the mix correctly, then it seems like this would be a really great solution there as well. Why is it that I get the sense that you feel like this would be a sub-optimal solution, a sticking point *against* gay marriage (or any other issue that might lead to this outcome) rather than one for it?

I guess I felt/still feel that what you wrote in the post here doesn’t really go along with what you wrote in comment 12…

What about the gospel—-the temple? I can’t make sense of same sex marriage in the face of my testimony, fractured as it is.

Yeah, what about the temple? Especially if it doesn’t have to be able the temple *at all* (although I think that’ll just mean that the church will continue to be less able to serve gay people, but that’s really up to the church…)

^actually, I didn’t want to end that comment there…feel free to merge this comment with my previous one.

I would say that at one point, if someone doesn’t like gay relationships of any kind and has a theology around that, then at least that is consistent. I think that’s where the church is as an institution, although many members aren’t staying on board with that. I think that this means that a lot (but not all) of gay people who could have found something to the church will instead decide that it’s not for them, but at least it’s consistent.

But imo, it seems to me that a lot of the church’s best theology, so to speak, comes from a spirit of interpersonal relationship-building. The family is central because of the interpersonal relationships inherent to a family, and the opportunities to learn and grow thereof.

So, to me, it seems like celibacy doesn’t really fit with LDS theology (and so I think the church has difficulties with single people, but that’s a complex issue too). With gay/lesbian people, these are people who could be pursuing families — just like their straight brothers and sisters — and although those families would look a little bit different, they could still have the opportunity to grow from those interpersonal relationships. What I’m saying is…I think the church misses a huge opportunity here. It could actually have a relevant moral stance on interpersonal family relationships — gay and straight — if it could see that certain messages about families apply to *all kinds* of families, rather than just the nuclear, straight, “traditional” family.

Anne,

I guess I’m not sure what you want from me (or from a discussion on this post in general), either. I appear to have guessed wrong with each of my comments.

I have some thoughts on this that I’d love for those more knowledgeable than I am to correct me if I’m off. Also, tone is always a bit hard to convey in text alone, so please understand that I’m not trying to be mean, dismissive or anything like that, just understand this issue better. And I’ve got crazy children in the background, just to make coherent trains of thought even that much more fun. Anyway, to get to the point, as far as I understand, SSA has never been acceptable in the eyes of the Lord, right? In the original language of the biblical texts, it was able to be even clearer on the subject than English (due to gender distinctions in grammar that English does not have). I’m curious on this point because there seems to be a definite undercurrent of thought on this topic from many people that the Church will eventually come around and provide full embrace of SSA and marriage. But with all the religious history on the topic and the emphasis that we have on the nuclear family, it seems to me that this is one of those principles that has always been in place and is really, really unlikely to change. We’ve been told how important and distinct gender and its role is, even before this life, and how it’s not just arbitrary. As part of that, especially in the family roles, the influence of each is very important.
I’ve heard the analogy with extending the priesthood to all worthy males, but I don’t see that as comparable since it was never an official doctrine to exclude blacks. If I’m remembering correctly, there were blacks given the priesthood in the first few decades after the Church’s establishment, right? It was a cultural thing that led to that not continuing, not a direction from God, whereas the historical position on homosexuality has been fairly clear.

As a side note on that, I find it very interesting that in order to get approval to change just about anything affecting the habitat of any species, there are many studies and the like done to assess the potential effects those changes would have. Yet the push to change something as fundamental as the basic family unit (mother, father, children), something that’s been in place for pretty much all known history, has no such concerns.

There are significant challenges that we all face, some more difficult than others. And a lot of those challenges I don’t believe we’ll understand until after this life. I say that not to be flip or glib, but as the only way I understand some of the challenges given in this life, SSA among them.

I have gay friends and gay friends who want “marriage equality.” While I want them to be happy in this life and support their right to choose, my only oppositions to completely supporting same-sex marriage is as follows:

1. I believe that gender and gender roles are divinely appointed. I believe the Proclamation on the Family where it states, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. … Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

2. Marriages that cannot be “sealed” in the temple for eternity then leave children without the opportunity to be eternally sealed to their GLBT parents. (They could be sealed to their birth parents with whom they may have no relationship, but this feels like something that would cause pain and suffering to the GLBT parents.)

So, while the mortal experiences of GLBT couples and their children may be filled with happiness, the whole point of our existence here is to prepare for the hereafter which is where these families fall short. There is much more than this life to think about.

Just a note of clarification: I do NOT believe marriage that “start in the temple” are any more prone to success than civil marriages. I am married civilly but NOT sealed to my husband as he has no interest in the church at this time in our lives (nor for the past 13 years of our marriage). We have children and are very happy. However, our marriage is still “eligible” for sealing whether that happens during our mortal existence or after.

Re #25 – Viv wrote: “SSA has never been acceptable in the eyes of the Lord, right? In the original language of the biblical texts, it was able to be even clearer on the subject than English (due to gender distinctions in grammar that English does not have). I’m curious on this point because there seems to be a definite undercurrent of thought on this topic from many people that the Church will eventually come around and provide full embrace of SSA and marriage.”

I’m with you on this point. As far as we know, the Lord has never wavered on this point. In fact, I’m not sure how other religions that utilize the Bible get around this very clear doctrine.

#30 – “I was thinking last night that public perception of the gay lifestyle has changed pretty radically since I was a kid. Maybe those living the lifestyle have changed? Settled down? Gone from hiding to hysterically being (more than?) who they are out of resentment to normality.”

I think that a lot of things considered “outrageous” have changed over time as society becomes more laisser faire about issues. In the 50s and 60s, young, unwed mothers were sent away or shunned. Now, we provide daycare at high schools for such mothers. Is this good or bad? I don’t know…

Showing love and compassion is always a good choice so I continue with that on a personal basis. On a societal basis, though, when does “tolerance” become acceptance of behaviors that don’t align with our morals just for the sake of “keeping peace” or “saving face”? In my eyes, tolerance is different from compassion. Christ showed compassion, but not necessarily tolerance.

You can tell that the Church has already changed its position on same-sex marriage in one small way: no more prop 8 rhetoric or attempts to change the law by referendum. Why is the Church not attempting to do prop 8 campaigns in the other states that have passed same-sex marriage in their state legislatures? Because it would be a waste of time and money, as California’s prop 8 has proved to be. This is not a battle that the Church can ultimately win. It is similar to the battle over polygamy. Polygamy was ordained of God. Church leaders went to prison rather than renounce it. After a decades-long battle with the law, a revelation was received that banned it and ultimately, the Church went to excommunication of those who practiced it. That was an enormous 180 degree change. That shows that the Church can change its position on doctrine that was once considered fundamental and unchangeable.

#33 – MCQ

The church stopped practicing polygamy to adhere to laws passed in this country. However, polygamy is still practiced on a spiritual level (as much as this may make some members uncomfortable to admit). A man can be sealed to more than one woman at a time, he just can’t be legally married to more than one woman at a time. The church believes in sustaining the laws of whatever country its members live in and will take action against those who don’t obey the laws of their own country. So it’s not entirely a “180 degree” change.

Likewise, you see polygamy practiced at various times in the Bible. It doesn’t mean it is always allowed by God’s people in all dispensations. We haven’t been asked to live by the Law of Consecration the way the early saints were or in the way we could be (thankfully). However, it’s a law that could be in effect based on the needs of God’s people.

The church has never supported SSA or same-sex marriage. Whether it becomes legal or not will likely have no impact on the church’s stance as it’s still a commandment found in the Bible and has never been allowed in any dispensation.

#36 – annegb “I’m just starting to get annoyed with Bill’s assumption that he’s going to have more wives. Yeah, that’s going to happen.”

Ha ha! :-)

My arguments about same-sex couples not being able to be sealed has nothing to do with current “policy.” This is an eternal law. My reasoning is about what will become of such couples and families after this life. Even if I die without being “sealed” in the temple, my union with my husband is still “eligible” for eternal union based on God’s laws.

What exactly are you saying is an eternal law? You don’t know whether God will permit same sex couples to be sealed in the future or not. You are basing this idea on current policy, and assuming it is eternal. You don’t know that. Many people argued previously that the priesthood ban was an eternal law. Obviously, they were proved wrong.

The church stopped practicing polygamy to adhere to laws passed in this country. However, polygamy is still practiced on a spiritual level (as much as this may make some members uncomfortable to admit). A man can be sealed to more than one woman at a time, he just can’t be legally married to more than one woman at a time. The church believes in sustaining the laws of whatever country its members live in and will take action against those who don’t obey the laws of their own country. So it’s not entirely a “180 degree” change.

This is a crock. the church does not believe in always sustaining all the laws of whatever country they are in, nor is the stand against polygamy merely a matter of civil law. There are countries where polygamy is allowed under the civil law. Are people in those countries allowed to practice polygamy as members of the church? No. does the church sustain the immigration laws of even the US, let alone other countries? No. The Church widely flouts the immigration laws, and in my opinion, rightly so.

#38 MCQ -rock the pulpit!

“If you believe that, then you don’t believe in a loving God, in my opinion.”

I am thinking that the scriptures are full of examples of a loving God and then a wrathful God. Depending on my argument, I pick whichever version of bi-polar God fits my needs.
All I know for sure is that I really don’t know what the next life is like. So I am choosing love for this life.

I don’t have a problem with gays getting legally married. I have enough problems of my own to micromanage I don’t have the energy to care about what my neighbors are doing in their bedroom.

Re: #41 living in zion – “I am thinking that the scriptures are full of examples of a loving God and then a wrathful God. Depending on my argument, I pick whichever version of bi-polar God fits my needs.”

Love It!

I think Man has always had difficulty understanding the balance between justice and mercy which is how I view the issue on same-sex marriage. We want to follow God’s law (as we understand it) and want other to do the same–justice. However, one of God’s laws is to love others so we’re not sure how to balance that with the others–mercy.

As I said, I very much DO want those I know who have SSA feelings and same-sex partners to be happy. I have two family members and several friends who are gay and have been in long-term relationships with partners who are loving, kind, charitable, hard working, and help bring out the good in their partners. I just don’t know how to balance their desires for acceptance and tolerance against my other beliefs. And, while it’s truthfully none of my concern and outside my realm of responsibility, I worry (not daily fretting about their situation, but concerned worry) about their eternal happiness and that of their families.

I will take a stand, but I won’t do it lightly or without concern for how my vote affects those whom I love.

You know, Richard wilkins had a very profound experience that solidified his testimony on the proclamation. I’ll try to find on-line. He represented the church at the UN. The nations of Islam were all over it. Give me a minute.

Here’s a link to a talk he gave about his experience. There’s a video, too, we had it out Relief Society. It was pretty cool, the UN conference people kept putting him and some other conservatives off for their chance to talk. Then they limited it to four minutes and had them pick one person and it was him. Well, that’s a fractured telling, but it’s what I got from it.

and believe the Proclamation to be revelation from God

I don’t. Neither does the Church:

Remember this talk from Elder Packer?

Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

The part struck out was in the original talk and was removed in the published version. This shows that, to the Church, the proclamation does not qualify as a revelation from God. It is a guide only.

MCQ did a much better job explaining it.

The Mosaic Law is not, as you claim, “anathema to us.” If you understand Christ’s purpose related to the Mosaic Law, you understand he came to fulfill the law, not re-write it. While we no longer abide by the minutia of how many steps we can take on the sabath or any of the other 613 strict rules, the basic principles that created those rules are still in force.

This is the standard answer but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. There’s no way to say it other than just we don’t follow these rules anymore. Here are a list of things in the Law of Moses that we don’t do (and no, they’re not about the number of steps we can take which, surprise, isn’t in the law of Moses):

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death

Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

We don’t believe those things anymore, and we don’t follow them. Some of them are, in fact, abominable practices to us, and we would never do them. We just don’t believe in the law of Moses. You can say that it has been fulfilled or whatever, but the simple fact is that we don’t follow these rules. We just don’t. So to pick out some of them and say that they are still commandments, while we let the others go in the trash, that’s just rank hypocrisy, and frankly untrue.

annegb Your thoughts were devastatingly honest, gritty and heartfelt. I really appreciated your piece.

Ultimately, it seems to me, that theological concerns you legitimately hold can be dealt with on your schedule over time.

What proponents of civil marriage equality are concerned with is equality under civil law. However opponents may dislike the idea of homosexuals having equal civil protections and responsibilities as themselves, ultimately it does not impact, change, or in any way alter the religious beliefs or practices of Mormons or any other group.

Equal civil marriage for consenting adults will be the law of the land, sooner or later, and American society has already passed the threshold of majority approval of equal civil marriage for homosexuals.

Thanks again for your riveting piece.

annegb, the reason I asked about Wilkins was that I used to work with him. I was working with him when he made that speech to the UN in about 1995. It’s an interesting story, but to me it doesn’t so much affirm the proclamation as condemn the UN.

I agree that there have been changes in the views regarding the roots of where it comes from, but there has never been a change regarding the behavior.

Given that Church leaders have repeatedly been demonstrably, factually wrong in their “inspired” statements on the issue of same-sex attraction, both with regard to what causes it and how to “cure” it, why should their statements regarding the moral content of same-sex relationships be regarded as any more accurate? They have a serious issue when it comes to credibility. You seem to be suggesting that even though their premises have been shown to be faulty, their conclusions should still be accepted uncritically. Your position is akin to a ship’s captain that just has been convinced that the earth is in fact round, but who nevertheless continues to worry about falling off the edge of the world.

L-dG, I’m assuming you’re saying they’re wrong regarding the root cause of SSA, right? Yeah, that’s been one that hasn’t been treated very kindly over the years, and I’d bet a lot of that has more to do with cultural influences than revelation. Same with the idea of “curing” it. But you’re still evading my point: the behavior itself has ALWAYS been condemned, wherever it’s coming from. This is not a new, recent-only issue. Note that we’ve moved away from just condemning and writing off the person with SSA, and I believe that’s been good progress toward being much more Christlike. But there has never been softening on the issue of the behavior itself – not historically and not in modern times either. Just because someone has a biological tendency toward a particular behavior doesn’t mean they have a free pass and their behavior suddenly becomes acceptable (and no longer wrong). We’ve been instructed quite clearly that we choose our behavior, and we’re responsible for that behavior in light of our knowledge. The position on homosexual behavior itself has been consistent.

Anne, thank you! I know many people don’t agree with me, but that’s fine; there are lots of people I disagree with too. I love conversations that are intelligent discussions and disagreements, that don’t devolve into personal attacks. Especially considering how deeply our circumstances affect our viewpoints, I love talking to others and trying to understand where they’re coming from. As for the whole polygamy issue, I’ve always had a hard time with that one (it makes me feel equated to a milking cow, just part of a stable). I’m sure a lot of that comes from cultural conditioning, but it’s one of those things I just have a really hard time getting behind. The way I’ve made peace with it for now is 1) that we’re not currently asked to live it and 2) I trust Heavenly Father in lots of other areas, and this is one that I hope I’ll understand at some point in the future (probably after this life). And I understand your feelings about the celestial kingdom. I’ve got four kids, ranging from 8 to 1. I love them to pieces, but the thought of an eternity of endless childbearing and rearing is enough to make me pass on the celestial kingdom. I want a break!

viv, have you read the comments at all? It has not been clear or unambiguous that homosexual behavior has always been condemned. I’m not going to repeat myself, so I’ll just say that you’re wrong. That verse doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Just because someone has a biological tendency toward a particular behavior doesn’t mean they have a free pass and their behavior suddenly becomes acceptable (and no longer wrong). We’ve been instructed quite clearly that we choose our behavior, and we’re responsible for that behavior in light of our knowledge. The position on homosexual behavior itself has been consistent.

This is the problem: members of the Church are always talking about homosexuality in terms of a biological tendency toward something that is wrong. The thing that’s missing in that analysis is that (1) the Church has changed its policy in the past on what is “wrong” and (2) the homosexual person can’t just ignore the “tendency” or change it and be straight. In other words, if a homosexual is going to have a genuine loving relationship, he or she is going to have to be with a person of the same sex. A person who simply expects their homosexual brothers and sisters live in unmarried celibacy for their entire lives is not a person who loves their neighbor as themselves. Most Church members would not choose to do that in a million years, so quit just self-righteously expecting it out of your brothers and sisters.

#65 MCQ – “It has not been clear or unambiguous that homosexual behavior has always been condemned.”

I’ve been reading back through your comments, but I don’t see any support from a Christian theological perspective that would support your statement. Do you have something to back it up? I’m not trying to be contrary… I’d really like to know what makes you think homosexual behavior has been considered acceptable at any time in known history related to Christian theology or LDS doctrine.

#54 L-dG Thank you for your comments… Here are my thoughts.

1) “Homosexuality as addressed in Leviticus is part of what is called the Holiness Code. In that setting, same-sex activity is condemned using the same terms with which mixed fibers in clothing are condemned. Modern Christians (I’m including Mormons in this) happily reject the vast majority of the Code, but seem to cling to the verse you referenced because of the paucity of scriptural material that treats the subject.”

I understand the Holiness Code has a LOT in it. However, the verse I mentioned is surrounded by several others we do consider to be still valid. While the entirety may not be followed, we still maintain certain elements to be be part of our current doctrine.

2 & 3) I understand what you’re saying… It seems this point is not worth debating. I don’t think either side will win. For me, it comes down to a combination of how I understand the ancient scriptures mixed with modern-day revelation. I understand these scriptures to condemn homosexual relations and so do modern prophets. For me, that’s enough. Others may need to reconcile that issue in other ways.

4) Whether the Proclamation on the Family is considered “revelation” or a “guide,” it was given to us by the leaders in whom I have placed my faith and trust for guidance. I believe it to have divine origins even if it hasn’t been cannonized. I also consider the Ensign to be inspired even if every article and story isn’t considered “revelation” or “scripture.” Again, for me, it guides my views.

5) “More broadly, LDS statements on homosexuality have been anything but consistent in the past several decades. Claims regarding its etiology and the appropriate response have been all over the map, and often contradictory from one year to the next.”

I’m not trying to be contrary, but can you offer an example? I don’t like statements that I can’t verify with direct quotes. It makes it hard to address in a reasonable manner (for me).

Though, my response without more information would be that the issues concerning SSA and same-sex unions is one that continues to evolve both societally and in regard to the church. As I see it, the GLBT community has changed its way of presenting itself on a united front and, as Anne mentioned earlier, have gone from hiding, to somewhat outrageous behavior, to its current state of working towards diplomacy and “normalcy.” I think the church’s response has likely changed somewhat due to changes in the political and social environment. I wouldn’t expect their statments on SSA in the 70s to be anything like the statements we see today. Likewise, the church was much more restrictive of women working outside the home in the 60s and 70s and now is more open to the idea. However, society has changed on this front, too.

As I said in #66, I see the gospel and church as two separate things. The church is, indeed, fallible, because it is lead by imperfect people. However, my views on SSA and same-sex unions is based on a combination of what I understand to be gospel truths and church doctrine.

MCQ, I’ve read the comments. I’m going off what I’ve learned from those who know the original language and culture of at least the NT when they say that the original text is clear on the subject. If you’re just looking at the English translation, yes, there’s ambiguity. At the very least, can you show me ANYWHERE in the scriptures where there is any indication that homosexual behavior is okay? And if I’m wrong on the meaning of that scripture, what do you say it means?

You again are missing my point. I ask where in any recorded scripture, modern or past, has homosexual behavior EVER been considered anything but “wrong”? What are your examples of what has been changed from “wrong” to “right” in terms of eternal principles? I’m curious what you have to back up your point (1), especially in regards to homosexual behavior. As for your point (2), did I once ever argue that they should change and be straight? You’re setting up an argument that I didn’t.

I’m trying to figure out a polite way to put this next thing into words, but I don’t know that I can, so I’ll just go ahead and say it (though I recognize it’ll likely be…ahem…heartily disagreed with – but whatever). There are other people in life throughout history that through no fault of their own (whether it was when or where they were born or due to something else) essentially never will have the chance at a loving relationship and marriage in this life. Is it fair? Nope. Lots of things we’re given in life to deal with aren’t fair, and it can definitely suck. I can give all sorts of hypothetical examples, but the point is that there have always been people that won’t have that opportunity, just like those with SSA today. I say this not to cheapen that struggle, but to point out that it is one of many, many unexplained challenges that we are expected to deal with in this life. It doesn’t change the laws of God. I can see the comments following accusing me of being heartless and “self-righteous” (as MCQ already said). All I can say is that I don’t hate the people that deal with this issue and all that comes with it; I have compassion, not condemnation, but I still won’t go against what I believe is right. I’m sorry that this is a struggle they have in this life, same as I’m sorry for those that have incredibly difficult struggles in other areas. Obviously, others have their own choices to make regarding what they will do. But I disagree with embracing homosexual behavior, the same way I disagree with going against anything else that Heavenly Father has made clear. I completely acknowledge the agency every one of us has, and my opinion will hardly factor into the choices of many, but do not expect me to support something that I believe Heavenly Father has made very clear is wrong, even if it makes for some hard times in this life. This life isn’t the end-all of everything, and I’m grateful for that.

#71 Viv “There are other people in life throughout history that through no fault of their own (whether it was when or where they were born or due to something else) essentially never will have the chance at a loving relationship and marriage in this life. Is it fair? Nope. Lots of things we’re given in life to deal with aren’t fair, and it can definitely suck. I can give all sorts of hypothetical examples, but the point is that there have always been people that won’t have that opportunity, just like those with SSA today. I say this not to cheapen that struggle, but to point out that it is one of many, many unexplained challenges that we are expected to deal with in this life. It doesn’t change the laws of God. …I disagree with embracing homosexual behavior, the same way I disagree with going against anything else that Heavenly Father has made clear. I completely acknowledge the agency every one of us has, and my opinion will hardly factor into the choices of many, but do not expect me to support something that I believe Heavenly Father has made very clear is wrong, even if it makes for some hard times in this life. This life isn’t the end-all of everything, and I’m grateful for that.”

Hear! Hear! I think we may be sharing a brain (or at least a viewpoint on this matter). I’m sure MCQ and others will heartily disagree with you, but I completely understand what you are trying to say (see my comment just below yours).

L-dG, I’m assuming you’re saying they’re wrong regarding the root cause of SSA, right? Yeah, that’s been one that hasn’t been treated very kindly over the years, and I’d bet a lot of that has more to do with cultural influences than revelation. Same with the idea of “curing” it. But you’re still evading my point: the behavior itself has ALWAYS been condemned, wherever it’s coming from.

No, viv, I’m not evading your point––I addressed it in #61, but you seem to have missed it. I’ll reiterate: that beliefs regarding same-sex behavior have been consistent is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. Why should anybody accept the current LDS position on the morality of same-sex behavior, when everything verifiable that LDS leadership has said on the matter has been factually wrong? Why should I accept their ‘inspiration’ regarding its ethical or moral nature, when their ‘inspiration’ regarding its cause and resolution has been nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy? As you assume yourself, “a lot of that [i.e.: previous fallacious positions on the etiology of homosexuality] has more to do with cultural influences than revelation.” So they are––by your own admission––mistaking cultural prejudice for the revealed will of God! This doesn’t bode well for their position on homosexual behavior: that they have been consistent is beside the point entirely, since it is very likely they’ve just been consistently WRONG.

A perfect example is the issue of slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments presuppose the acceptability of owning slaves. They are on that point quite consistent. Today, however, we recognize that it is morally intolerable. It is not right to own other human beings. It was never right. But there were plenty of people who, because of Christendom’s consistent acceptance of an evil practice, maintained its rightness up until the issue was forced (at least in the US) by the Civil War. That slavery was broadly and unvaryingly accepted up to that point did not make it okay.

“Consistent” is not a synonym for “correct“. Thus, your harping on about consistency is not germane to the discussion. Repetition doesn’t save your argument from irrelevance. It was pointless the first time you said it, and it has not gotten less so.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

I understand the Holiness Code has a LOT in it. However, the verse I mentioned is surrounded by several others we do consider to be still valid. While the entirety may not be followed, we still maintain certain elements to be be part of our current doctrine.

Paroled from the Primary Presidency, it doesn’t matter whether you’re clinging to just one decontextualized, cherry-picked verse or a handful of them. The problem remains the same: there is no cogent reason for enforcing or accepting a few verses as normative, while conveniently ignoring the rest of them. Let me know when you start to keep kosher and attend a synagogue.

Apart from the above, your first four points in comment #69 essentially ignored the points I made in #54. Your position seems to be, “Yeah, I see what you’re saying, but I disagree,” and you do so without suggesting where my reading might be faulty. If argument by bald, unsupported assertion is your cup of (herbal) tea, that is, of course, your business. (Though, technically, such an approach is not really “argument” at all––it is just noise.) If you can’t be bothered to actually and substantively engage, I can only reiterate: Your position can only be maintained by carefully shielding one’s mind from disturbing forces, such as history and fact. #69 is a nearly flawless example of that approach. Good for you.

As for the varied and almost hilariously inconsistent understandings homosexuality that the Church has taught, this essay is a good place to start.

Amen Amen and Amen LdG. I agree completely.

Right, Paroled: anyone who argues for equality for our homosexual brothers and sisters must be gay, right? No one could possibly want fairness and compassion for others just because it’s the right thing, could they?

viv and Paroled, your arguments fail in their conception because they are based on a falacious assumption. That assumption is the one you keep making and LdG and I keep refuting. You are assuming that the current position of the Church on homosexual behavior is God’s eternal and unchanging position on the matter. That is simply not a well-supported assumption, for the the reasons already stated by LdG and I.

You cannot assume that something is an eternal unchanging law just because a few statements have been made about it. Slavery had a much longer tradition of prophets upholding it (even in the Bible) and today we consider it one of the most fundamental wrongs.

You ask where Homosexuality has ever been found to be right. I could ask you where many other behaviors you engage in have ever been found to be right. The test for whether something is right is not whether God or prophets have ever endorsed it. We do a thousand things a day that no prophet, ancient or modern, has ever told us are approved behaviors. We take it for granted that any behavior is acceptable unless it is specifically condemned. I hope we can therefore dispense with the idea that any behavior is condemned unless it is specifically endorsed by the prophet.

Also, the comparison to singles is inapt, because single people always have the hope that they will meet someone and get married. Even single, they are allowed to date and engage in a loving relationship. They inly have to postpone sex until marriage. Gay people do not have these options. Under the current Church thinking they cannot hope to ever get married. If they date, they must do so very carefully, lest they be seen to be “advocating” or “propmoting” homosexuality, which can result in Church discipline or expulsion from Church schools. They cannot have any sort of physical relationship without fear of Church discipline. Do not compare them to straight single people in the Church. It’s not the same at all.

One other thing: can we dispense permanently with the idea of “the gay lifestyle”? In my experience, there is no such thing. Gay people do not all act one way or all do the same things all the time. They were not all in the closet and then all came out and marched in flamboyant parades and then all decided to settle down and get married. There are all kinds of gay people doing all kinds of things, just like straight people.

#77 MCQ – “You are assuming that the current position of the Church on homosexual behavior is God’s eternal and unchanging position on the matter.”

I can’t speak for Viv on this matter, but I believe I stated my limited understanding on this position. I can’t “guess” at what God may or may not do in the future. But all past and current evidence regarding His position on homosexual relations is that they are condemned. To date, that has been God’s position and seems to be unchanging. Could it change? I suppose. But my faith leads me to believe that at this particular point in our history, it is still considered wrong and is an unchanging sin. I see no evidence to the contrary. So that is what I have to work with as I make decisions about voting for or against same-sex marriage (not that it’s up for vote in Massachusetts at this time).

Opinions, beliefs, personal convictions-these are my tools for guiding my actions. Even outside of Biblical support, I feel that homosexual behaviors are wrong. I don’t condemn my GLBT friends and family members. I just don’t condone their actions. Regardless of the origins of their feelings, I believe their behaviors to be wrong.

ExMoHoMoDon, that’s pretty much why I don’t feel like crusading against stuff like Prop 8. I completely disagree with same sex marriage, but at the same time, I recognize that the reason for that is a religious one that many others don’t share. I’m not going to actively support it, but I don’t feel right about getting heavily involved in constitutional bans on it either. I guess I’m a bit on the fence about this, like Anne.

L-dG and MCQ, you still have not given me ANYTHING to go on about homosexual behavior being anything but condemned. Consistency is still very much an issue with the basis of my argument: Through His prophets, God has said it is wrong. I’m still going by those I’ve known who have actually studied the Bible in the original language and in the context of the culture of that time when I say that in the original text, it was very clear that they were condemning homosexual behavior. By your cherry-picking arguments, we have to completely dismiss the Bible as a whole because there’s no way we can only take bits and pieces of it. You are arguing either we accept every last detail or none of it. As an honest question, how do you decide what you will accept from the BIble?

L-dG, just because the root of SSA is unclear and the understanding of it has changed, how in the world does that nullify what the prophets and apostles have said on the behavior itself? You said: “Why should I accept their ‘inspiration’ regarding its ethical or moral nature, when their ‘inspiration’ regarding its cause and resolution has been nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy?” This is where we will fundamentally and irreconcilably disagree. What you see as wishful thinking and fantasy I see as speaking from God. This issue has been addressed repeatedly in General Conference, which is pretty much modern scripture as I understand it; not just occasional nice guidelines, but messages from Heavenly Father from His chosen representatives in an official setting. If there was some variance in opinions regarding homosexual behavior, that would be more of an issue to address with cultural influences affecting the message. As our understanding of the cause of SSA has changed, there’s been a much better approach regarding how to treat those that deal with it (going from shunning as sinners to loving even while disagreeing with them). But the condemnation of the behavior itself has not changed. Same as your issues with the Bible, by your argument, all that they say on anything should be dismissed since you don’t accept their inspiration.

MCQ, you said: “I could ask you where many other behaviors you engage in have ever been found to be right. The test for whether something is right is not whether God or prophets have ever endorsed it. We do a thousand things a day that no prophet, ancient or modern, has ever told us are approved behaviors. We take it for granted that any behavior is acceptable unless it is specifically condemned. I hope we can therefore dispense with the idea that any behavior is condemned unless it is specifically endorsed by the prophet.” Seriously? Really? I’m not asking God or the prophets to micromanage every single thing I do every day. But they have felt that homosexual behavior has been enough of an issue to bring up REPEATEDLY and CLEARLY CONDEMN IT EVERY TIME. If you are with L-dG on the whole wishful thinking approach, then again, we’ll never agree on this issue. My assertion that homosexual behavior has always been condemned is based on my acceptance as the Bible as the word of God and the modern Prophets and Apostles speaking on His behalf (D&C 1:38). And the recent ones haven’t simply shared their opinions on the side; they’ve addressed the issue in an official capacity. I’m very curious that with the very fundamental issues you and L-dG have with the Bible and modern messages from prophets, why are you members at all? I’m not being facetious or rhetorical with that question. I’d honestly like to understand why you are members of the church if you don’t accept a really critical part of the foundation of it, namely past and modern revelation from God through prophets.

You know, looking back through this thread and the direction it’s taken (including my input), I think I’ll just let this go. I’m tired of repeating myself and it looks like L-dG and MCQ are as well. We’re clearly not going to end up agreeing with each other, and I suspect it’s going to quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks, especially based on L-dG’s post 82. http://xkcd.com/386/ is a great summation of it.

Mcq #64, it’s true! I know it sounds funny, but I’m trying to talk Bill into buying a fifth wheel and selling the house so we can visit when we want and they can’t visit us. Well, as a mother, having my children visit is more work than plain old company.

L-dG and MCQ, you still have not given me ANYTHING to go on about homosexual behavior being anything but condemned. Consistency is still very much an issue with the basis of my argument: Through His prophets, God has said it is wrong. I’m still going by those I’ve known who have actually studied the Bible in the original language and in the context of the culture of that time when I say that in the original text, it was very clear that they were condemning homosexual behavior. By your cherry-picking arguments, we have to completely dismiss the Bible as a whole because there’s no way we can only take bits and pieces of it. You are arguing either we accept every last detail or none of it. As an honest question, how do you decide what you will accept from the BIble?

I guess we’re never going to get past this point. You think Homosexual behavior has been consistently condemned, I think it has not been. Not in any way we can accept as a blanket condemnation, at any rate. Most of the scriptures and the prophets, including the BoM and Christ himself, have been silent on this issue. When there have been pronouncements, they have been in a context (like Leviticus and Paul) where you cannot just take them as commandments against homosexual behavior, since the context does not allow for that kind of reading. You are correct that some modern prophets have condemned this behabvior, but mostly those condemnations have been very recent, and have changed dramatically in scope, tone and foundation. In my mind, this means that the Church’s position is not cast in stone.

I have no personal stake in this, other than the feelings and testimonies of friends and family of those friends who have expressed anguish over this issue. Most of the things we as a Church have said and continue to say about homosexuality have turned out to be not only wrong, but harmful. I think we should think twice before we continue with the destructive assumptions we have made in the past. Paroled and viv are continuing to spout the same platitudes that got us to this place. They don’t work for me anymore.

Seriously? Really? I’m not asking God or the prophets to micromanage every single thing I do every day. But they have felt that homosexual behavior has been enough of an issue to bring up REPEATEDLY and CLEARLY CONDEMN IT EVERY TIME. If you are with L-dG on the whole wishful thinking approach, then again, we’ll never agree on this issue. My assertion that homosexual behavior has always been condemned is based on my acceptance as the Bible as the word of God and the modern Prophets and Apostles speaking on His behalf (D&C 1:38). And the recent ones haven’t simply shared their opinions on the side; they’ve addressed the issue in an official capacity. I’m very curious that with the very fundamental issues you and L-dG have with the Bible and modern messages from prophets, why are you members at all? I’m not being facetious or rhetorical with that question. I’d honestly like to understand why you are members of the church if you don’t accept a really critical part of the foundation of it, namely past and modern revelation from God through prophets.

viv, you’re clearly not listening, and you’re not even consistent with the Church’s position. As you know very well, the Church does not accept the Bible to be “the word of God.” The Church accepts the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. That qualifying phrase at the end there is very important. It requires us to get modern revelation, through our prophets, apostles and (most importantly) through the spirit before we can accept Biblical scripture as the word of God. Thus, you cannot just take the verses in Leviticus and Paul as blanket condemnations of homosexual behavior. For one thing, they don’t even say that, and second, they are Bible verses and thus are subject to some question.

But let’s leave that issue aside, because questions of translation need not even enter into our analysis. You seem to be claiming that you accept all pronouncements of prophets in scripture (Bible or otherwise) and through other media as the unqualified word of God. Is that really your position? Are you claiming that no prophet has ever been wrong? Are you seriously suggesting that you accept every prophetic utterance from whatever time and place as God’s word?

Let me answer for you: No. You don’t. Of course not. You know how I know this? Well, there’s the little matter of the things I listed in comment #55, for one, which you have never answered. You don’t believe in or do any of those things. Why? Because a later prophet has condemned them? No. You just don’t accept them as applicable to you. Quite right. But that means that you can’t just accept at face value other Bible verses which command other things, unless you have modern revelation endorsing them.

And that’s what you’re really saying here. You have modern revelation endorsing (in some fashion) the things stated about homosexual behavior in Leviticus and Romans, and so you accept those verses as authoritative on the subject. But there are also a lot of other things that modern prophets have said that you don’t believe. For example, you don’t believe in the Adam/God doctrine announced by Brigham Young. You also don’t believe that people of African descent should not hold the priesthood or that they were less valiant in the pre-existence or a host of other things that the prophets and apostles once taught but that now we don’t believe anymore. The reason you don’t believe these things is that prophets sometimes make mistakes, and we need to use our own connection to the spirit to determine what we are going to believe and follow the dictates of our own conscience. We are not only allowed to do this, we are commanded to do it (D&C 9:7-9).

Many people believed the prophet and apostles were wrong about the priesthood ban. They did not accept it when Elder McConkie, Elder Peterson and others stated that the priesthood ban was ordained of God. They did scholarly work and wrote and spoke about the unfairness and inconsistency, the lack of compassion and understanding of our black brothers and sisters that the ban demostrated and perpetuated. Thank God for those people of good conscience who refused to accept unfairness and injustice just because it came out of a prophet’s mouth. They showed that you can be a faithful (even the most faithful) member of the Church without accepting every prophetic utterance at face value.

Please do not ever again call into question another person’s faithfulness just becuase they differ with you or with some statements of the Brethren. The Brethren are not perfect. They can be and have been wrong. Saying so does not make someone a bad memeber of the Church. Get that out of your head. One can faithfully disagree and argue for a change in the present thinking. Many changes have happened in the Church and many more will happen in the future. We don’t have to guess at what those changes might be, we can simply recognize that all light and knowledge is not now in our (or the prophet’s) possession, and we can recognize that injustice still exists in the world. We don’t have to accept it. We can try to change it.

L-dG, just because the root of SSA is unclear and the understanding of it has changed, how in the world does that nullify what the prophets and apostles have said on the behavior itself? You said: “Why should I accept their ‘inspiration’ regarding its ethical or moral nature, when their ‘inspiration’ regarding its cause and resolution has been nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy?” This is where we will fundamentally and irreconcilably disagree. What you see as wishful thinking and fantasy I see as speaking from God.

You see, viv, it’s stuff like this that’s made this discussion so frustrating. You went to the trouble to quote from one of my comments, but then did not address what I actually said! It’s just been one long parade of straw men from you. Either you’ve been inadvertently misunderstanding my points, or you’ve been disingenuously misconstruing them. Reading your comment above would lead one to believe that I had called all the statements of LDS leaders on the subject of homosexuality “wishful thinking and fantasy.” Of course, I did nothing of the kind. What I really said was “their ‘inspiration’ regarding its [i.e.: homosexuality's] cause and resolution has been nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy.” That’s a very different point, referring to a specific kind of statement. It is not a minor distinction.

So, permit me to break this down further. I will be as clear as I possibly can.

LDS Church leaders have, over many years, made statements about homosexuality. These statements make different claims and fall into different categories: statements about the moral/ethical nature of homosexual behavior; statements about the causes of homosexual attraction; statements about how homosexual attraction or feelings are to be cured, eradicated, suppressed; etc. You will notice that some of these claims are objectively verifiable––that is to say, the truth claims of certain statements can be evaluated by processes other than personal and subjective means (like how you feel when you pray about something). Where they have made claims about the etiology of same-sex attraction (that is, what causes such attraction), such claims can be investigated scientifically to determine if they are reflective of reality (i.e.: true). Where they have made claims about how homosexual attraction can be resolved or eliminated, such claims can be similarly tested to see if following their advice does in fact resolve or eliminate such attraction. Other claims––regarding the moral/ethical acceptability of homosexual behavior, or the role/nature of sexuality in post-mortal settings, etc.––cannot be similarly tested. These would be matters of faith, accepted due to the either personal conviction regarding the claims themselves or beliefs about those who make such claims.

Fair enough so far?

Now we get to the point: If you examine how the empirically verifiable claims LDS leaders have made regarding homosexual attraction correspond with reality, the results may surprise you. The essay I linked to in comment #75 is a great place to start if you want to look into it yourself. But, because I’m a nice guy, I won’t keep you in suspense:

***SPOILER ALERT!***

ALL THE CLAIMS MADE BY CHURCH LEADERS THAT HAVE PURPORTED TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGINS OF SAME-SEX ATTRACTION AND HOW IT COULD BE RESOLVED HAVE PROVEN TO BE FALSE.

(Now, if that sounds eerily familiar, don’t worry, you aren’t experiencing déjà vu. In fact, you read the same thing before in comment #75, which you then quoted yourself in your comment #81.)

So, Spencer W. Kimball was incorrect when he (in his role as an apostle) counseled gay people to just get married, promising them that their homosexual attractions would thereby be resolved. The result of following this “inspired” counsel was a lot of ugly divorces. And there were usually children around who were hit with the shrapnel of exploding marriages that would most likely have never been attempted, had it not been for leaders like Elder Kimball telling vulnerable souls that this was the will of God for them. He was wrong. His arguments were wishful thinking. His promises were fantasy.

Boyd K. Packer was also wrong when he taught (in his role as an apostle) that homosexuality was caused by selfishness, and promised that if gay people would simply be unselfish, they would be “cured routinely.” That “inspired” counsel was published in pamphlet form as To the One, and it was the Church’s official word on the subject for DECADES. Sadly, it was quite incorrect, both in its claims about the causes of homosexuality (at the very least, we know it is far more complex than a matter of petty selfishness––most likely including significant biological elements), and in its prophecy that we would be “curing” gay people “routinely.” Nevertheless, many people suffered––told that this was the will of God, revealed through His servant, and published by His Church––no doubt wondering why their concerted efforts at selfless behavior were not making them less gay. He was wrong. His arguments were wishful thinking. His promises were fantasy.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Now, this does not, of course, prove that the Church is wrong in their claims to represent the will of God regarding the moral and ethical nature of homosexuality. Nevertheless, their record is not exactly confidence inspiring: on every statement that can be evaluated against fact, they have been simply, plainly (and for some, lethally) wrong.

But how could this be? How could their “inspired” counsel be so faulty?

The possibilities are quite limited: either they 1) were not inspired in the matter, or 2) God did inspire them, but God lied. Given that the brethren are not infallible (and have not ever claimed to be) I think that option 1 is the less distressing of the two, but suit yourself.

Now, Church history provides a similar case at the nexus of doctrine and policy that might be instructive. At some point, most likely after the death of Joseph and Hyrum, the priesthood began to be denied to those of African descent. (Let’s ignore the fact that all humans are technically of African descent for right now; that’s an argument for another day.) Exactly how this happened is not entirely clear. We do know that Joseph did allow for the ordination of black males, and we have no record of Joseph disallowing the practice, so it seems likely that it was either an innovation of Brigham Young, or it was an innovation that originated elsewhere but received his imprimatur, and thus became normative Church-wide. However it happened, practices need justification. (And we are here getting into the territory of hypothesis, but it seems to me the most compelling explanation.) So how could early Mormonism justify denying the priesthood to black men? It seems to terribly unjust. But God is not unjust. Thus––the reasoning went––they must deserve this “curse.” From there it was not much of a stretch to arrive at the notion of pre-mortally less-valiant spirits coming to earth in bodies with dark skin––skin that, independent of LDS doctrine, put them at a significant disadvantage in the western culture of the day. This idea didn’t grow in a cultural vacuum, and seems to have been closely related to notions of the curse of Cain passed through the descendants of Ham by Egyptus which were present in broader Christianity––notions that were ever so useful in justifying practices like slavery. Take special notice, though, of the way these justifications worked: they accepted the status quo (in this case, slavery or the priesthood ban) and went backward from there; they did not start with racial equality and decide that the scriptures demanded they abandon it.

In lifting the priesthood ban, a number of things happened. Slavery ended, and with it (though not immediately) certain scriptural justifications were jettisoned. The Civil Rights movement gathered steam and the culture of the United States continued to shift in the direction of valuing equality and de-legitimizing (if that’s a word) racism. (The Church, being a conservative institution resisted this trend; Church leaders made various statements during this period that are quite embarrassing to modern Mormons. Church leaders may be inspired, but they are still fallible products of their culture.) Finally, there were shifts within the Church. This was a largely bottom-up process. Members became less and less comfortable with racist doctrines; scholars started to question the doctrinal and scriptural underpinnings of such attitudes, and began to find that their justifications were not nearly so compelling as they had seemed to previous generations. Edward Kimball has suggested that Lester Bush’s article “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine” was a particularly important paper to his father, and was a significant factor in getting Spencer Kimball to reconsider the matter of the priesthood ban. And the rest of the story is no doubt familiar…

Now back to all those scary gay folks!

I believe that any shift in our understanding of homosexuality will take place in much the same way. Public opinion will adapt as straight people actually get to know gay people and thereby make the shocking discovery that gay people are, in fact, PEOPLE! This is already taking place. The dreadful and slanderous kinds of statements that were de rigeur only decades ago, are now becoming accurately understood as dreadful and slanderous. Contrary to what we were popularly taught (often inside the Church), gay people don’t recruit. They aren’t out to convert your kids. (I hope I don’t need to comment on the irony of that statement coming from members of a church with tens of thousands of full-time missionaries.) Contrary to what the Church published in the 1970′s in “New Horizons for Homosexuals” (a nasty piece of work), that gay people would simply abandon their partners when they “could no longer satisfy sexually,” that homosexual relationships were inherently and totally exploitative, the AIDS crisis stands as a compelling testament that love is love, and commitment is commitment, and that gay relationships are no less based on love and commitment than straight ones. The native revulsion heterosexual people feel at the thought of homosexual intimacy will no longer be used to justify intolerable doctrinal positions. The biases Mormons continue to bring to the scriptures will be re-evaluated through responsible scholarship. (See more below!) Positions that seemed justified, self-evident, and unassailable will be revealed as simple prejudice parading in the robes of prophecy. (Take, for example, the rhetorical question President Packer had excised from his GC talk in Oct 2010: “Why would Heavenly Father do that?” by which he actually meant “Heavenly Father wouldn’t do that.” The implication being that making some people naturally gay would be unjust if he was going to condemn homosexuality and not also provide some means to turn the gay people straight. Of course, it would be unjust to do that. Quite as unjust as making people dark skinned and so denying them the priesthood, if they hadn’t done something bad in the pre-mortal realm to deserve such a curse. Yes, it would be precisely that unjust!) And we will learn to forgive and repent of the bigotry of our recent past, as we continue to learn to forgive and repent of the racism of our more distant past.

viv, you have maintained that the scriptures have “REPEATEDLY and CLEARLY” condemned homosexuality “EVERY TIME” it was mentioned. That claim is problematic. First, none of Mormonism’s unique contributions to the canon mention homosexuality. The statements in the standard works are confined to the Bible. As has already been discussed, there are statements in Leviticus that address the issue, and (again) MCQ and myself have already made clear why portions lifted out of the Holiness Code (without making even an attempt at considering context!) are not compelling support to your position. Indeed, including them is actually a liability––it makes any of your other scriptural claims suspect, as it is fairly damning evidence that certain of your false assumptions with regard to holy writ remain disturbingly intact (“Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone,” as Wilde said).

The other Biblical argument comes from the Pauline corpus, and here you are on somewhat firmer ground (just as quicksand is firmer than water). I will happily concede the point that Paul was not a fan of same-sex intimacy. Of course, Paul doesn’t seem to have been much of a fan of physical intimacy at all. His letters make it evident that he anticipated the parousia very soon, and so thought it would be best if single people would just remain single; reasonably, he didn’t demand that married folk run out and get divorced. He clearly thought celibacy was the best option for everyone, though, and only allowed marriage as a concession to mankind’s weakness. He also taught that women ought to remain silent in church meetings and should keep their heads covered. Does any of that sound even remotely applicable to Mormon theology? A theology that requires marriage as a prerequisite to the fullest form of salvation? A theology through which Elder Holland described sex, not as a possibly justifiable unpleasantness, but as a SACRAMENT?

Further, (and I mentioned this earlier in comment #54, but you still haven’t seen fit to address it) there are significant reasons to doubt that the Bible actually says anything about homosexuality per se. Neither Paul nor Leviticus are unambiguously applicable to homosexuality (as opposed to same-sex behavior) because neither the term nor the concept existed in the cultures in which the Bible developed. Just as Bible doesn’t talk about television, because biblical authors weren’t aware of such a thing, there are scholars who would argue (perhaps convincingly) that the same is true of homosexuality. Some of these scholars have written books. I hope you might consider reading one or two of them before you dismiss their ideas sight unseen. (A tenuous hope, but still…)

Even more fundamentally, there are very serious causes to doubt that the Bible can be accepted uncritically as a guide to moral or ethical behavior. I mentioned slavery in comment #75––yet another subject you have not seen fit to consider! Both the Old and New Testaments accept the practice. Biblical authors seem to have felt it was morally justifiable. Do you feel the same? You have continued to insist that no one has been able to show you a scriptural example in which homosexuality was not condemned (of course assuming that the scriptures actually address what we mean by the word “homosexuality”––a significant assumption you have neither justified nor supported), but neither have you demonstrated a biblical example that DOES condemn slavery. Do you, then, favor private ownership of human beings?

In summary, your arguments from the Bible cannot simply be accepted at face value. I am insisting that holy writ does not come down pure as snow. It comes to imperfect people, people who are influenced by their culture and experience. And, yes, I think any valid approach to scripture must to take this into account. That, viv, is how “you decide what you will accept from the Bible”: context and honest, careful exegesis––not knee-jerk credulity.

Similarly, no living prophet receives revelation that is unfiltered by human experience. (This ought to be obvious, as, presumably, the same general conditions that apply to prophecy received by dead prophets applies to prophecy received by live ones.) No General Authority lives in a vacuum, and none of them are infallible. Still, the writings of living prophets are different in at least one way from other scripture: they have not yet been canonized. They have not passed the test of time, nor received the imprimatur of the body of the Church through the Law of Common Consent. Such writings may be scripture, but they are not yet Scripture. Plenty of modern scripture has been simply abandoned and disavowed. (Search the Journal of Discourses for information on the nature of Adam, and the meaning of ‘Blood Atonement.’ You may find it an instructive experience.) As I’ve already stated, The Proclamation on the Family is not yet Scripture in the second sense, and may never be canonized. (Of course, even if it is, that doesn’t make it permanently Scripture. Things have been removed from the canon as well, like the Lectures on Faith.)

Well, viv, I have no idea if you’ll read this or if I’m just talking into the aether. Nevertheless, you have accused me of “cherry picking,” you’ve maintained that I “don’t accept [the] inspiration” of prophets or scriptures. Of course, you’re quite wrong; and I’m not sure if I should attribute it to ineptitude or maliciousness on your part. I’ll let you decide.

For my part, I take this kind of thing quite seriously––seriously enough to be as rigorous as I can in trying to understand and square theology with reality––seriously enough to accept that truth may be complicated and messy and troubling and something to lose sleep over.

But there is a difference between taking it seriously, and taking it at face-value.

I started reading Lgd’s post last night and just finished. Gee whiz. I even scanned over some parts.

:)

I think you’re right, Don. If half of the states allow gay marriage, won’t the others have to recognize said marriages?

Both of you, what say you to my premise that homosexual behavior has evolved? My generation–well the 60′s and 70′s, say, didn’t have much (if any) exposure to gays. That we knew of, because everything was secret and shameful. Very few gays lived openly and those who did were treated pretty badly.

Then there came AIDS, San Francisco, gay pride and a bounce in the other direction. So gay behavior seemed pretty crazy and sometimes downright rude, outrageous and in your face. Seriously, what I’ve seen about those gay pride parades don’t seem about equality, tolerance and compassion–they seem more about celebrating gay sexuality. Which I’ve been told over and over isn’t the issue at all.

Now, we have respectable gay couples. Acting like normal people. In all aspects of our lives. So I’m thinking they sort of boomeranged back to being just folks. (Actually, I’m thinking I should go into sociological research because I’m like a genius).

THAT’s all well and good. It’s the eternal AND religious (not the same) implications that are causing the conflict. Forget scripture–there’s a long held perception that the homesexual lifestyle isn’t holy, honoring family and all that’s good in life. The Roman and Greek empires accepted homosexual relationships. Look what happened to them.

Don’t rip my faces off guys, I don’t know if I believe it, but I think that’s where attitudes lie.

Maybe gay organizations should mount a public relations campaign and I should be the advisor. Be seen taking your kids to church a lot. Have family picnics. Condemn R rated movies. I don’t know.

Viv and Paroled have made points that reflect the values of millions of Americans. They’re not advocating concentration camps. I might decide I agree with them. I kind of doubt it considering my personal relationships. But I’m not jumping on any bandwagon.

Like I said, it took me years to figure out the race issue; I’m starting to think polygamy was simple sexism—and sex. But this, I’m nowhere near figuring out.

If anybody brings up polygamy in SS, I’m going to say something like “I’ve already chosen the five men in this room who are going to be my husbands–my kings–who’ll help me create worlds without numbers and service my needs for eternity.”

And smile a soft smile at all of them.

If half of the states allow gay marriage, won’t the others have to recognize said marriages?

Not under current federal law.

That’s the purpose of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman and says that no U.S. state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state.

One part of DOMA is no longer being defended in court by the Obama administration’s Dept. of Jusice, but the law is now being defended in court by the House of Representatives.

I agree with the rest of Don’s comment #92. The idea that Greece and Rome fell because of homosexuality is clearly wrong. Many empires have risen and fallen over the history of the world. You can’t point to one cause for any of them rising or falling; there are always many causes.

I’m coming to this conversation pretty late. The church’s objections to me, do not seem to be based on denying rights, but upon preventing interference of government in religion. A 2008 statement says:

“The church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference”

Seeking laws providing equal treatment is in no way prohibited by church policy.

The issue that worries by the church and others of faith the religious right to define marriage. The issue that worries the gay community is equal rights under the law and equal societal standing.
Marriage customs and marriage law have been changing drastically in the last thirty years. This is a concern to those who champion traditional marriage, great news to others, and a mixed bag to other viewpoints.

To me the issue appears to be one of church and state. The church (and other religious bodies) want to ensure that they can continue to define marriage according to the laws of the church without interference.

No matter where anyone stands on marriage, it is hard to deny it has changed significantly and will likely change significantly. As far as heterosexual marriage goes, 40% of children are now born out of wedlock. Divorce is high, even for temple sealings. Marriage is on the decline.

This might be vastly unpopular with both sides, but I think there is a simple solution here. Marriage has always been a religious ordinance. Courts treat marriage as a kind of diluted contract law. Separation of church and state?

Why do away with marriage as a hybrid/civil religious process? Make ALL unions part of contract law. Individuals would be able to make civil unions that are registered as contracts with the government and recognized by it. Marriage would continue to be available as a religious ordinance as defined by ones religion. The government takes no hold or influence on the religious rite, and therefore worries about how the government defines and influences marriage are gone because it doesn’t.

Religions aren’t losing control of marriage this way, but gaining it. No marriage incentive is being lost, because no real societal/governmental incentive currently exists. Our current laws don’t effectively incentive marriage. If they did would we be seeing the increase of cohabitation and out of wedlock births along side a steady divorce rate?

The question of equal treatment is gone, because any two individuals could enter into a contract which could be recognized much as civil unions are recognized in some states now. I’m very much for eternal families and against divorce. I don’t think that should or even CAN effectively be legislated. People can and will make their own choices. I’ve lived through enough of that in my personal life.

A possible additional benefit to this idea–people often get into marriage with only hazy ideas of what their standards are for continuing this very serious commitment, and differing ideas of what either till death do us part or for time and all eternity mean. Spelling it out helps someone to look at what they are really committing to–it also makes more clear cut what each agreed to in the unfortunate event of a court case for dissolution.

These issues need not be incompatible.

The problem with that is that non-religious people still want to call their unions “marriage.” That word has meaning for people of no religion as much as for religious people. Why should people who are getting married civilly have to settle for some diluted legal contract instead of a marriage? How does it harm people of faith for people who get married civilly to call their union a marriage? Why do religions want sole ownership of that word? Why should anyone think they are entitled to it?

Not to mention the fact that religions define marriage differently. If the only way to get “married” is to do so in a church, get ready for a million churches to crop up that define marriage any way you want it to be defined: for a fee. How does that help anything?

Further disclosure and thought on the matter: I am a worthy, active LDS member. I am a single father who was sealed in the temple; did not choose divorce–but rather worked hard to avoid it, and I am the one that raised our children. I am personally extremely committed to traditional marriage. Individuals still have choice (agency) no matter what the legal situation is.

Separation of church and state aside (and I think that is the important issue here), there are some points I’d like to make against the argument for keeping marriage as it is in the U.S.

DOMA and other attempts to put marriage back where it was years ago through legal action are far past rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. These attempts are more like trying to get everyone together to patch the hole in its hull. They miss the point that the ship is already beyond saving. It’s sinking no matter what you do. My call is ABANDON SHIP!

This doesn’t mean giving up principles, but recognizing that you can’t change broad societal attitudes through legislation. The church and others already have their own boats that are designed to define and protect marriage and the family. No need to rely on the world’s. Launch the craft and pull those who don’t want to swim up into the boat with you. If someone else has their own boat–well and good. Should anyone really fight that?

Think that there is broad support for defining marriage in a specific way? Check the trends of behavior carefully. Turning loose government control of marriage will change its public definition? Really? Is there a consensus or even majority public definition? Polls and behavior show that people are living together rather than marrying, most people aren’t opposed to same sex unions; a large and loud majority do oppose SSU; there are a wide variety of current marriage ceremonies that people are paying for and holding under the current system; marriages are frequently dissolved–the process is messy, unclear, and painful; within heterosexual marriages the definition of what a marriage is vary widely; often politicians who verbally champion traditional marriage don’t even practice it themselves; and that there are legitimate religious concerns about being forced to accept definitions of marriage that run counter to beliefs–it’s a mess.

No one is going to give up their own definition of marriage. All sides fear the imposition of others beliefs upon their own.

I care deeply about the impacts of home life on children. The current system is not helping that, and I don’t believe that this change will make things in that that department any worse.

Having the marriage desired is already a paying affair. This idea doesn’t get rid of marriage, prevent the non religious from having it, or give ministers tons of money. It just removes a government definition of it–allowing freedom and provides a legal means (already largely in existence) for securing rights of partnership.

Seriously–anyone have a more realistic idea for getting out of this mess?

Jhn, I agree that getting government completely out of the ‘marriage’ business would be an equitable solution. I doubt many will go for it at this point, though–the Church has already decided to draw its line in the sand elsewhere.

I think that a C.S. Lewis quote might be applicable here: Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question––how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

@MCQ you are misreading me.

Nowhere did I suggest that churches should get exclusive use of the word marriage. I am suggesting that the government get out of marriage.

Put simply: 1. Drop the term marriage from all government documents and registration.
2. replace with contractual partnership rights.
3. Anyone who wants to legal protection to domestic partnership has equal protection.
4. Anyone is free to define marriage however they like. Anyone, religious or not can ‘get married’. But this is a private thing–religious or non religious–you are responsible for your own definitions, records, and practices–civil law has nothing to do with it.

It’s okay if you don’t like it, but it sure doesn’t stop the idea of marriage among non-religious people any more than it stops the idea of marriage among religious people. I don’t expect popularity, but do you have another proposal that doesn’t end up trying to force one end of the spectrum or the other into your particular beliefs?

MCQ:

We just disagree then. You can define a word in a variety of ways. A legal definition can exist or not. If we want to fight over a legal definition someone loses. If we choose not to fight over a legal definition of the word but make sure everyone is treated the same legally, no one is happy but no one is infringed upon either.

Nothing in the proposal devalues the word marriage. Rather it allows individuals to apply it as they see fit. Value the word–of course that’s the point–the word is so valued and so charged that our nation will not agree on a forced definition of it; and certainly not on an officially split definition of any kind. Either everyone agrees to disagree or there is a protracted legal war over the mess. I choose to say–I respect other people’s points of view and would rather we agree to ‘abstain’ from the legal debate as a country by accepting that there are conflicting ideologies–simply extend the separation of church and state. I realize people will not like this on either side, but it does get rid of the MAJOR objections on each side, and I don’t hear any proposals that aren’t leaning one way or the other. Not likely to be adopted? Probably not–because no one ‘wins’.

If you disagree–fine–come up with a compromise that will work or fight one side of the ideological war.

I don’t want to have a war of ideas either–just a discussion.

bye bye

ok,

I’ll rise to the bait one last time. The Jim Crow argument would be legitimate if we had legal marriage for hetero marriages and civil unions for same sex. I get that.

If you force someone to legally recognize a marriage when they believe it to be repugnant to God, you are infringing upon their freedom of religion. If you deny someone the right to be married you are infringing upon their freedom. Churches and other entities have been forced to accept legal definitions regularly or be charged with discrimination. Individuals want their rights upheld in all circumstances. Impasse. Unsolvable without someone losing. And neither side is EVER going to quit.

If we say… you know the government really has no dog in this fight–it doesn’t matter for governing a country how a church or individual or group defines marriage. What does matter is that people are treated fairly and equally.

Everyone has the exact same rules and legal name for domestic partnership? How is that Jim Crow? No separate but equal here.

Everyone has the right to define marriage (an important word as they see fit–and get married–but the government doesn’t enforce it. How is that discriminatory?

All it means is no one wins their side of a war to force their viewpoint on others.

You still get to be married and document it–just like everyone else it doesn’t get registered with the government–but JUST like everyone else–your rights are protected by a contractual partnership. Same EQUAL treatment for everyone.

The word itself is an unending battle ground if we insist on using it legally.

I still haven’t seen a counter proposal that doesn’t take rights from one side or the other–only complaints that this wouldn’t allow you to win. It won’t allow anyone to win. That’s the point–rights are protected but no one gets vindicated.

Respond or not as you wish…. Like Viv, I’ve had enough of the ‘Someone is wrong on the internet.’ cycle.

BTW, you are absolutely taking rights from people if you tell them they can’t get “married” civilly, and can only get a contract or domestic partnership or civil union.