LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I read this in the same faith debates section and it got me to thinking:

The letter from the First Presidency shows clearly what side of this isssue LDS members should be supporting.

Below is the statement from the First Presidency of the LDS church, which was sent to California churches, urging them to support the California amendment.

"The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children." The letter continues with, "We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

LDS Church letter asks members to fight gay marriage - ABC4.com

The LDS Church's stance is that same-sex marriage is not "ordained by God". While I find this lamentable, I still wonder: does the fact that something is viewed as prohibited, not ordained by God, sinful, heretical or otherwise disapproved necessarily mean that it should be made illegal in secular law as well?

Not just looking at the LDS Church, but also at other religious groups that have opposed secular legalization of same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious beliefs, is this a principle that is normally applied in other areas of human endeavour? Do these groups generally seek to make things illegal for everyone when those things aren't in accordance with the teachings of their faith?


Also (and going back to the LDS Church specifically), the 11th Article of Faith is as follows:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Can marriage ever be considered an aspect of worship of God? If so, is the statement to the California churches in conflict with the 11th Article of Faith?

 

[Polaris]

The LDS Church's stance is that same-sex marriage is not "ordained by God". While I find this lamentable, I still wonder: does the fact that something is viewed as prohibited, not ordained by God, sinful, heretical or otherwise disapproved necessarily mean that it should be made illegal in secular law as well?

No, not always.

Not just looking at the LDS Church, but also at other religious groups that have opposed secular legalization of same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious beliefs, is this a principle that is normally applied in other areas of human endeavour? Do these groups generally seek to make things illegal for everyone when those things aren't in accordance with the teachings of their faith?

It comes down to how we believe such principles effect other people and society as a whole. As in the case of same-sex marriage the LDS church believes that the legal and social embracing of same-sex marriages and relationships will result in a negative effect on our society. It will likely lead to more children being raised without a father and a mother, which pattern we believe to be divinely established by God for the greatest benefit of man. It will likely lead to decreased sexual inhibitions in general which will over time degrade our society's moral fabric, which we believe to be the heart of a strong society. In attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the moral character of our society, the church feels a duty to publicly support measures that block attempts that we feel threatens these moral values.

Also (and going back to the LDS Church specifically), the 11th Article of Faith is as follows:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Can marriage ever be considered an aspect of worship of God? If so, is the statement to the California churches in conflict with the 11th Article of Faith?

No because there is an implied "as long as it isn't harmful to others or to society" in our beliefs. Obviously we don't believe that a religion should be able to do what they want without limits.

 

[Father Heathen]

It will likely lead to more children being raised without a father and a mother,

Likely? Before we start stamping out freedom, perhaps we should offer some evidence and an explanation on why and how, exactly, this would happen.

It will likely lead to decreased sexual inhibitions

Again, how? This makes absolutely no sense. When passing a law, especially one that impacts our rights and liberty, there better be a credible and substantiated reason to justify it.

attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage

People regurgitate this slogan a lot, but does it really even have any real life baring? How is it going to impact and change heterosexual marriages in any way whatsoever?
Should we really sacrifice our rights and liberty (the values that define this nation) just to humor your wacky religious nonsense?

Organized religions (particularly abrahamic ones) do far, far more damage to society and children than homosexuality ever could.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, not always.

So why here?

You referred to a few issues where you see potential harm arising from same-sex marriage, but (as I'll point out in a moment), these assessments of harm are highly debateable, not to mention the fact that even if true, their magnitude is much less than other issues that I have not heard a peep from the LDS Church about.

It comes down to how we believe such principles effect other people and society as a whole. As in the case of same-sex marriage the LDS church believes that the legal and social embracing of same-sex marriages and relationships will result in a negative effect on our society. It will likely lead to more children being raised without a father and a mother, which pattern we believe to be divinely established by God for the greatest benefit of man.

The right we're talking about is for two people living as spouses to be legally recognized as such. How does this increase the number of families with same-sex parents, or the number of children raised by same-sex parents?

And in terms of the scale of this problem as you see it, how big an impact do you think same-sex marriage would have relative, say, to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers to Iraq? Was the LDS Church's response to this issue and its impact on the pattern "divinely established by God for the greatest benefit of man" that not having a mother and a father present to raise the child represents in proportion with its response to the prospect of same-sex marriage?

It will likely lead to decreased sexual inhibitions in general which will over time degrade our society's moral fabric, which we believe to be the heart of a strong society. In attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the moral character of our society, the church feels a duty to publicly support measures that block attempts that we feel threatens these moral values.

The difference between same-sex marriage and not is the difference between relationships of no special status and those that are conferred with legal status in a way that endorses and celebrates of lifelong monogamy. How does this lead to either decreased sexual inhibitions or degradation of society's moral fabric?

No because there is an implied "as long as it isn't harmful to others or to society" in our beliefs. Obviously we don't believe that a religion should be able to do what they want without limits.

Ah... so the privilege referred to in Article 11 is that all men have the privilege of worshipping God by the dictates of your conscience?

 

[Magic Man]

I'm reminded of a quote from the Bible. I don't know the exact quote, and can't look it up right now, but it says something about how people should live by the law of their land, except when it contradicts God's law. Allowing gay marriage doesn't make anyone but supporters of it go against God's law. If our law says that homosexuals can marry each other, none of these people opposing it have to engage in homosexuality, so they should go by the idea of abiding by the law of this land.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm reminded of a quote from the Bible. I don't know the exact quote, and can't look it up right now, but it says something about how people should live by the law of their land, except when it contradicts God's law.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and render unto God that which is God's"?

It's always struck me that this could have been a way to advocate rebellion to the assembled Jews (i.e. "give nothing to Caesar, since everything is really God's") while not saying anything that could be considered by the Romans to be treasonous... but this is not the standard interpretation.

There are other verses in the Epistles about how all authority is appointed by God.

Allowing gay marriage doesn't make anyone but supporters of it go against God's law. If our law says that homosexuals can marry each other, none of these people opposing it have to engage in homosexuality, so they should go by the idea of abiding by the law of this land.

However (and to argue from the other side for a moment), the law does allow the law to be changed. It's perfectly legal to advocate and petition the government to change its laws. Being law-abiding doesn't mean that you have to want the law to stay static.

 

[Starfish]

Organized religions (particularly abrahamic ones) do far, far more damage to society and children than homosexuality ever could.

A very unfair generalization.

 

[Popeyesays]

Civil law is one thing and religious law is another.

I am not engage in same sex marriage as it violates the laws of chastity in my faith, nothing stops me from going to San Fransisco and getting married in a civil ceremony.

If I did that the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha`i's of the United States would eventually revoke my administrative rights and I would not be able to attend Feast, vote for or serve in elective offices, nor would I be allowed to contribute money to the Baha`i funds.

But I would still be a Baha`i, and have the options to somehow rectify the situation.

I voluntarily obey the laws of my faith.
I do not get to violate the law of the land, however, so a person in that situation is subject to how it is treated under the law of the land.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Polaris]

Likely? Before we start stamping out freedom, perhaps we should offer some evidence and an explanation on why and how, exactly, this would happen.

This one's not too hard to foresee. More same-sex parents leads to more same-sex parents with adopted (or otherwise conceived) children, means more children without either a father, or a mother.

Again, how? This makes absolutely no sense. When passing a law, especially one that impacts our rights and liberty, there better be a credible and substantiated reason to justify it.

When one believes that homosexual activity is immoral to begin with, its not a stretch to suggest that the societal embracing of such activity will not further perpetuate it.

People regurgitate this slogan a lot, but does it really even have any real life baring? How is it going to impact and change heterosexual marriages in any way whatsoever?
Should we really sacrifice our rights and liberty (the values that define this nation) just to humor your wacky religious nonsense?

Exactly what rights are being sacrificed here?

Organized religions (particularly abrahamic ones) do far, far more damage to society and children than homosexuality ever could.

I disagree. The organized religions don't damage society or children, evil men's misuse of them sometimes do. On the other hand organized religion provides many opportunities to help strengthen society and nurture children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This one's not too hard to foresee. More same-sex parents leads to more same-sex parents with adopted (or otherwise conceived) children, means more children without either a father, or a mother.

How does same-sex marriage increase the number of same-sex parents?

 

[Polaris]

And in terms of the scale of this problem as you see it, how big an impact do you think same-sex marriage would have relative, say, to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of mothers and fathers to Iraq? Was the LDS Church's response to this issue and its impact on the pattern "divinely established by God for the greatest benefit of man" that not having a mother and a father present to raise the child represents in proportion with its response to the prospect of same-sex marriage?

Those aren't really comparable. Ofcourse the preference would be for both mother and father to be present to rear their children, but acceptance of military duties are sacrifices made by some parents to help provide a better, more safe and secure future for our children and our nation as a whole.

The difference between same-sex marriage and not is the difference between relationships of no special status and those that are conferred with legal status in a way that endorses and celebrates of lifelong monogamy. How does this lead to either decreased sexual inhibitions or degradation of society's moral fabric?

Any action by society that endorses and celebrates any immoral behavior has the tendency of perpetuating that behavior.

Ah... so the privilege referred to in Article 11 is that all men have the privilege of worshipping God by the dictates of your conscience?

Look you can disagree all you want. I just believe that every child deserves to be raised and nurtured by a father and mother when possible. I believe that the sanctioning of same-sex marriage poses a threat to the moral values of our society. I have the right to believe and vote according to my conscience and you have the right to believe and vote according to yours.

 

[Polaris]

How does same-sex marriage increase the number of same-sex parents?

You don't think that as more same-sex couples get married that the number of same-sex couples seeking to raise children will also increase? I do, on two fronts: as same-sex relationships gain acceptance and even endorsement in society, more people will choose to take that path; and as the number of same-sex couples increases so will increase the number of same-sex parents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those aren't really comparable. Ofcourse the preference would be for both mother and father to be present to rear their children, but acceptance of military duties are sacrifices made by some parents to help provide a better, more safe and secure future for our children and our nation as a whole.

Ah... so "divinely established by God" isn't as clear-cut as it sounds?

Any action by society that endorses and celebrates any immoral behavior has the tendency of perpetuating that behavior.

The choice isn't between same-sex marriage and no gay couples. The choice is between same-sex marriage and unmarried, cohabitating same-sex couples.

Given your view of morality, how does it celebrate immorality to create a body of law that effectively says "having a gay live-in lover is fine, but having a gay spouse isn't"?

Look you can disagree all you want. I just believe that every child deserves to be raised and nurtured by a father and mother when possible. I believe that the sanctioning of same-sex marriage poses a threat to the moral values of our society. I have the right to believe and vote according to my conscience and you have the right to believe and vote according to yours.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asked to defend our positions.

You don't think that as more same-sex couples get married that the number of same-sex couples seeking to raise children will also increase?

Not unless the right to adopt is tied to marriage.

I do, on two fronts: as same-sex relationships gain acceptance and even endorsement in society, more people will choose to take that path;

That opinion is predicated on homosexuality being a choice. Do you think it is?

and as the number of same-sex couples increases so will increase the number of same-sex parents.

Why would legalization of same-sex marriage increase the number of same-sex couples?

 

[Dunemeister]

You don't think that as more same-sex couples get married that the number of same-sex couples seeking to raise children will also increase? I do, on two fronts: as same-sex relationships gain acceptance and even endorsement in society, more people will choose to take that path; and as the number of same-sex couples increases so will increase the number of same-sex parents.

The number of same-sex couples does not depend on whether they can get married. That's like saying cohabitation leads to traditional marriages. It doesn't, clearly.

People don't "choose" homosexuality because they can get married. Homosexual partners, if given the opportunity, may in fact get married. But they may not. Just as a cohabiting heterosexual couple may decide to get married. Or not.

Honestly, I don't understand the hullabaloo. After all, our experience in Canada (where homosexual marriages are legal) shows that proportionally very few homosexual couples, given the opportunity, actually tie the knot. So on the one hand, I don't understand the inordinate drive to make sure that such a small number of persons can have a ceremony. On the other hand, I don't understand the inordinate drive to prevent those ceremonies. Tempest in a teapot.

 

[madhatter85]

Ah... so "divinely established by God" isn't as clear-cut as it sounds?

in fact is is a clear cut as it sounds. in all instances it is important for the mother and the father to be present in rearing thier children. Because, when one is not present it becomes increasingly difficult to raise children in righteousness. Unfortunately there are circumstances outside of our control in which we must abide by the law of the land.

The choice isn't between same-sex marriage and no gay couples. The choice is between same-sex marriage and unmarried, cohabitating same-sex couples.

Of course there are going to be co-habitating people, and sex outside of marriage (which is only to be between a man and a woman) no matter who they are is immoral.

Given your view of morality, how does it celebrate immorality to create a body of law that effectively says "having a gay live-in lover is fine, but having a gay spouse isn't"?

It's not that we are saying one is fine and one isn't, both are equally disgusting before God. We don't want it being accepted as a society because it will just further perpetuate moral degredation in our society as a whole

Yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asked to defend our positions./QUOTE]
Of course you're going to defend your position. we can't stop you.

Not unless the right to adopt is tied to marriage.

and it should be, I don't think that Gay couples or unmarried hetero couples should adopt either.

That opinion is predicated on homosexuality being a choice. Do you think it is?

you misunderstand the statement, you always go "blah blah blah, you're saying it's choice".

It does nto matter if homosexuality in general is a choice or not, The fact is that there ARE people who CHOOSE to be homosexual. and yes whenever there is a "trend" set by someone who is in power or have some sort of following. People will take thier ques from them. It happens. Look at Anne Heche, clear example of choosing to be gay. she says she is and then she isn't.

Why would legalization of same-sex marriage increase the number of same-sex couples?

because of the "trend" attitude of society. when somethign new and accepted comes along people are more inclined to "try it out". because people don't think for themselves, they take Ques from people they admire. and it's a shame, but it's a fact.

 

[Father Heathen]

A very unfair generalization.

And homophobia isn't? When religions promote bigotry, ignorance and hysteria and when they want to destroy our rights and freedoms then my assessment is very fair. They are a danger to the mental development and wellbeing of children, a threat to liberty and are dead weight holding the progression of society back.

 

[Father Heathen]

You don't think that as more same-sex couples get married that the number of same-sex couples seeking to raise children will also increase? I do, on two fronts: as same-sex relationships gain acceptance and even endorsement in society, more people will choose to take that path; and as the number of same-sex couples increases so will increase the number of same-sex parents.

Since two people of the same gender obviously cannot breed then they would be adopting, which is a good thing considering all of the foster children in need of good homes.

 

[McBell]

Since two people of the same gender obviously cannot breed, then they would be adopting, which is a good thing considering all of the foster children in need of good homes.

To those who would perpetuate the myth that children need both a mother and a father, same sex couples are not considered "good" homes.

 

[Father Heathen]

When one believes that homosexual activity is immoral to begin with

But many others don't, so why should they have your religious gobbledygook imposed upon them? If you think certain things are immoral, then don't partake in them, but what right do you have to interfere with and violate the private lives of other people? America wasn't meant to be a despotic theocracy.

 

[Sententia]

But many others don't, so why should they have your religious gobbledygook imposed upon them? If you think certain things are immoral, then don't partake in them, but what right do you have to interfere with and violate the private lives of other people? America wasn't meant to be a despotic theocracy.

Mormons... They think their morals should be everyones... Frubals!