Why against gays?

[Imprisoned]

They can get married and it violates the mormon belief of marriage between a man and woman, but THINK about it...


If two gays marry, what can they do? Can they have kids? No. Can they cheat? No. They can already live with each other, what difference does marriage play with two of the same gender?

All they get from marriage is a status that says their together and love each other and would avoid cheating on someone or to show they're taken.


If a gay marries a gay, have they committed a major sin? I know its weird, but I feel like the church is almost persecuting Gay rights and I heard they spent millions to stop gay marriage from happening.

I am sorry if you disagree, but why be against Gay marriage? The gays can not really do anything even if they can be married and in the U.S. we are supposed to have freedom, are we limiting Gay Marriage Freedom by doing this?

[anatess]

Hi Imprisoned,

I suggest you go read up on the tons of threads currently open on lds.net addressing this issue. This has been discussed and the position of the church explained almost ad nauseum here.

We have several gay and lesbian members of this forum and they have had several really cool civil pow-wows over gay marriage and gay relationships and gay rights and the LDS doctrine and all that in this section already (Preserving marriage between men and women).

It would be really cool if we can just continue those threads instead of starting a brand new one.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Imprisoned

Can they cheat? No.

Why not?

[Godless]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Why not?

Lol, that had me scratching my head as well.

[john doe]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Why not?

Because gays are genetically engineered to not cheat?

[Elgama]

I'm also wondering why they can't have children but won't perpetuate the thread

[MarginOfError]

First, let me clarify where I stand on the issue of same-sex marriage -- I don't care. I don't completely agree with the way the Church addresses the issue (politically), and I find some of the tactics and ideology of the same-sex marriage proponents to be disturbing. When we step away from doctrine and consider the tactics of hard core 'traditional values' people, I'm equally disturbed.

Simply put, I don't particularly care for either side on the political argument.

So, with that in mind, let's step into doctrine.

Originally Posted by Imprisoned

They can get married and it violates the mormon belief of marriage between a man and woman,

This is the pure doctrinal explanation. It's pretty clear in LDS doctrine that we believe God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. In our religion, no other kind of marriage can be accepted. Living in a pluralistic society, we have the right to vote according to our beliefs. Also, living in a pluralistic society, we have the right to vote discordantly to our beliefs. Our vote is our vote and we aren't required to justify it (although many certainly do volunteer their justifications).

but THINK about it...

Now you're stepping into politics, and politics has nothing to do with the Church's opposition to same sex marriage. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage is strictly doctrinal. Individual oppositions are another matter, so you should refrain from making these arguments in the context of "the mormon belief" and rather focus on "a mormon's belief."

If two gays marry, what can they do? Can they have kids? No.

homosexual couples may adopt (in some states they don't even have to be married to do so). Furthermore, female same-gender couples may pursue any number of artificial means of impregnation, or even natural means for the purpose of conceiving and having a child. It isn't entirely unheard of, so as a political argument, I'm not sure this is particularly potent.

Can they cheat? No.

I should go back and find this reference, but there was a leader in the homosexual movement in Toronto who actually opposed same sex marriage because he didn't want to have to introduce fidelity to his community, nor the idea that one should feel guilty if he or she was unfaithful to a partner. Now that was a much different time, in which social pressure to not be found out was so intense that anonymous and casual sexual encounters had a much lower social cost. Fortunately, we've come out of those dark times. But the point is, it was not long ago that infidelity was the norm in homosexual culture, not the standard.

They can already live with each other, what difference does marriage play with two of the same gender?

Politically, it doesn't. But why should your political argument make a difference to the conscience and moral statements of a person who believes that marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman? As I already pointed out, people are free to cast their votes however they want and for whatever reason they choose.

All they get from marriage is a status that says their together and love each other and would avoid cheating on someone or to show they're taken.

On the flip side, neither opposite-gender nor same-sex gender couples need marriage to make these claims. In fact, there are thousands upon thousands of couples in the United States who make these very claims without getting married, both gay and straight.

If a gay marries a gay, have they committed a major sin?

By doctrinal standards, no they have not. But if two people of the same gender engage in sexual relations, then they have committed a serious sin.

I know its weird, but I feel like the church is almost persecuting Gay rights and I heard they spent millions to stop gay marriage from happening.

The Church is not persecuting gay rights. The Church is speaking up on an issue, which it is legally entitled to do. The Church has condoned no act of violence nor oppression against gays. In fact, it has endorsed that certain rights be extended through civil unions to same sex partners.

And the Church did not spend millions to stop gay marriage. The Church encouraged its members to get involved, many of whom chose to support traditional marriage, but some chose to support same sex marriage. It was these individuals who contributed the money of which you speak.

I am sorry if you disagree, but why be against Gay marriage?

Because people are entitled to vote their conscience.

The gays can not really do anything even if they can be married and in the U.S.

The counter argument to that is "if extending marriage to them doesn't gain them anything, then why bother extending it?"

we are supposed to have freedom, are we limiting Gay Marriage Freedom by doing this?

You toss the word freedom around without any clear definition. Freedom to do what? The way you speak of it, it really comes across as if you're saying, "we're supposed to have the freedoms that I think are important." Unfortunately, in a pluralistic and democratic society, freedoms are selected by the populace.

It's clear that you're very passionate about this subject, and so you should continue to work toward what you believe. But you won't get very far in the LDS community until you understand and acknowledge that we believe marriage between a man and a woman is the only form of marriage ordained of God. You have to understand that asking a mormon to vote for same sex marriage is asking a mormon to vote against the doctrine they've accepted. Your task, then is to convince them to dichotomize their political and religious beliefs. The arguments you've given here aren't going to accomplish that.

[FunkyTown]

Moe? This is the same guy who said if his mother wouldn't make him go to Seminary, he wouldn't try to destroy the church.

Seriously.

I'm not even making this up.

I'm imagining him kind of like Wario, the evil doppelganger from another dimension of Mario. He is both pleasing and awesome, but you can't take this too seriously.

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

First, let me clarify where I stand on the issue of same-sex marriage -- I don't care. I don't completely agree with the way the Church addresses the issue (politically), and I find some of the tactics and ideology of the same-sex marriage proponents to be disturbing. When we step away from doctrine and consider the tactics of hard core 'traditional values' people, I'm equally disturbed.

Simply put, I don't particularly care for either side on the political argument.

So, with that in mind, let's step into doctrine.



This is the pure doctrinal explanation. It's pretty clear in LDS doctrine that we believe God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. In our religion, no other kind of marriage can be accepted. Living in a pluralistic society, we have the right to vote according to our beliefs. Also, living in a pluralistic society, we have the right to vote discordantly to our beliefs. Our vote is our vote and we aren't required to justify it (although many certainly do volunteer their justifications).



Now you're stepping into politics, and politics has nothing to do with the Church's opposition to same sex marriage. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage is strictly doctrinal. Individual oppositions are another matter, so you should refrain from making these arguments in the context of "the mormon belief" and rather focus on "a mormon's belief."




homosexual couples may adopt (in some states they don't even have to be married to do so). Furthermore, female same-gender couples may pursue any number of artificial means of impregnation, or even natural means for the purpose of conceiving and having a child. It isn't entirely unheard of, so as a political argument, I'm not sure this is particularly potent.



I should go back and find this reference, but there was a leader in the homosexual movement in Toronto who actually opposed same sex marriage because he didn't want to have to introduce fidelity to his community, nor the idea that one should feel guilty if he or she was unfaithful to a partner. Now that was a much different time, in which social pressure to not be found out was so intense that anonymous and casual sexual encounters had a much lower social cost. Fortunately, we've come out of those dark times. But the point is, it was not long ago that infidelity was the norm in homosexual culture, not the standard.



Politically, it doesn't. But why should your political argument make a difference to the conscience and moral statements of a person who believes that marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman? As I already pointed out, people are free to cast their votes however they want and for whatever reason they choose.



On the flip side, neither opposite-gender nor same-sex gender couples need marriage to make these claims. In fact, there are thousands upon thousands of couples in the United States who make these very claims without getting married, both gay and straight.



By doctrinal standards, no they have not. But if two people of the same gender engage in sexual relations, then they have committed a serious sin.



The Church is not persecuting gay rights. The Church is speaking up on an issue, which it is legally entitled to do. The Church has condoned no act of violence nor oppression against gays. In fact, it has endorsed that certain rights be extended through civil unions to same sex partners.

And the Church did not spend millions to stop gay marriage. The Church encouraged its members to get involved, many of whom chose to support traditional marriage, but some chose to support same sex marriage. It was these individuals who contributed the money of which you speak.



Because people are entitled to vote their conscience.



The counter argument to that is "if extending marriage to them doesn't gain them anything, then why bother extending it?"



You toss the word freedom around without any clear definition. Freedom to do what? The way you speak of it, it really comes across as if you're saying, "we're supposed to have the freedoms that I think are important." Unfortunately, in a pluralistic and democratic society, freedoms are selected by the populace.

It's clear that you're very passionate about this subject, and so you should continue to work toward what you believe. But you won't get very far in the LDS community until you understand and acknowledge that we believe marriage between a man and a woman is the only form of marriage ordained of God. You have to understand that asking a mormon to vote for same sex marriage is asking a mormon to vote against the doctrine they've accepted. Your task, then is to convince them to dichotomize their political and religious beliefs. The arguments you've given here aren't going to accomplish that.

[Elgama]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

First, let me clarify where I stand on the issue of same-sex marriage -- I don't care. I don't completely agree with the way the Church addresses the issue (politically), and I find some of the tactics and ideology of the same-sex marriage proponents to be disturbing. When we step away from doctrine and consider the tactics of hard core 'traditional values' people, I'm equally disturbed.

Simply put, I don't particularly care for either side on the political argument.

I am going to agree 100% with Margin of Error on this first time ever I think when it comes to poliitics. I think when LDS disagree with gay marriage it should be by explaining why we disagree for reasons of doctrine rather than the mudslinging that happened. But I do understand with Prop 8 there was more to it constitutionally which is probably why LDS there were asked to be more vociferous in their objections.

However fact is Latter Day Saints believe in an eternal plan where we hope to be exalted like our Heavenly Parents. There is a lot of reasons why when an Earth or place is created why male and female/Yin/Yang/balance/Mother Earth etc needs to be present. We have good sound doctrinal reasons why marriage for eternity needs to be between man and a woman. That does not give us any excuse to treat someone who is gay or lesbian badly.

BTW I know gay or lesbian couples with children, my cousin and her wife are trying for one right now, they are looking for a spaniard willing to donate

[FunkyTown]

Originally Posted by Elgama

BTW I know gay or lesbian couples with children, my cousin and her wife are trying for one right now, they are looking for a spaniard willing to donate

I have to admit, Gama. This was laugh out loud worthy for me. Not a gay couple adopting, but the fact that they're insisting on a Spaniard.

So, I have to ask. I have this image in my mind of why and I'm sure it's wrong. So that I don't walk away from this with a wrong view of the process, I have to know: Why a Spaniard?