LDS Stance on Homosexuality

[Bishka]

Thanks, Maize. I wasn't aware of this letter, but there it is. The only thing I can say is that it's silent on civil unions so perhaps the Church hasn't taken an official stance on that.

That's what I was thinking.

I'm all for civil unions - absolutley.

:giraffe:

 

[Simon Gnosis]

I understand that your church teaches that no one should have sex outside of marriage. That's fine, I get that. What I don't understand is how it is fair to homosexuals to deny them marriage and insist they remain partnerless and celibate. How do you reconcile the fact that you give heterosexuals an outlet for love, partnership and sexual desire, but not homosexuals?

Precisely.

 

[nutshell]

Precisely.

One word contributions aren't contributions at all. Can you back up your word with some substance?

 

[Green Gaia]

That's what I was thinking.

I'm all for civil unions - absolutley.

:giraffe:

I am grateful for that, but do you know that civil unions are nowhere close to providing the same right and benefits that civil marriage does? I think I explained the difference earlier in the thread if you're curious what sets them apart. Just FYI...

 

[Fluffy]

A question for the LDS members: if there was a civil union between two people, would this make a difference towards the morality of sexual relations between these two or would it remain as immoral as if no such civil union existed (ie they were unmarried)?

 

[nutshell]

A question for the LDS members: if there was a civil union between two people, would this make a difference towards the morality of sexual relations between these two or would it remain as immoral as if no such civil union existed (ie they were unmarried)?

I suspect the church would consider it immoral because it is not a "marriage" as defined by God.

 

[DeepShadow]

If i were to die and discovered that the LDS relgion was true...t would mean that the doctrine of condemning homosexuality that exists in the LDS Church...stems from God Himself.

The church's position on any given issue doesn't necessarily come from God, unless that position is clearly stated in the Standard Works. If that's confusing, let me tell you a story:

After WWII Woodrow Wilson tried to push America into the League of Nations, believed by many Americans to be the only way to prevent another World War. Among his supporters was the current prophet, Heber J. Grant, and most of the General Authorities, some of whom went so far as to proclaim that Wilson had been raised up for just such a purpose as to bring America into the League. Yet a few General Authorities disagreed, including future prophets David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith. Reed Smoot, a Utah senator opposed to America joining the League, was in the unenviable position of being an Apostle as well, putting him at odds with the majority of the twelve and the prophet to boot! In the end, Reed voted against the League, and--partly because of that vote--the League failed.

Among the many lessons here is that nothing is doctrinal until it's added to the Doctrine and Covenants. Until then, it's not only possible to find an upstanding Mormon who disagrees, it's likely. With that in mind, how can you hold the LDS God responsible for a position that has not been made doctrinal yet? But you already seem to know that, because as you state in your next paragraph...

If God were to reveal to your Prophet that He doesn't view homosexuality as an evil sin, then i would happily accept the LDS religion if i died and found out it was the true one. But until that time, your Church's stance on homosexuality creates a line that i am unwilling to cross.

...you understand that this stance on homosexuality just might be changed one day. If you were to die before that change took place, would you condemn the LDS God because He didn't push harder on the church to meet your timetable?

 

[MSizer]

I'd love to see how many abiding members the LDS would have if they decided acting upon heterosexual desires were a sin. Very few I suspect.

 

[Apex]

Talk about thread resurrection...

I'd love to see how many abiding members the LDS would have if they decided acting upon heterosexual desires were a sin. Very few I suspect.

What are talking about?

 

[Duck]

I don't believe an inclination is the same thing as lusting. One seems to be a predisposition of sorts while another is consciously creating a scenario in one's mind. Is it a sin to be attracted to people? I don't think that's what Jesus was saying.

I don't know about you, but the folks I am attracted to I certainly lust after, even if I don't act on that lust...So yeah, I think the inclination is the same thing.

I also have issue with religions becoming directly involved (whether through a call to action, or request for support, or through threat of excommunication, or withholding of communion or what not) in secular politics.

I don't care how many good works a religion does in the world, you could feed the entirety of the known universe as a religious duty and in my mind all of those good works might as well not exist the moment that religion advocates stripping a group of people of their non-religious aka secular rights regardless of reasoning. At that point the religion as a whole, in my mind, is evil and worthy of nothing but my contempt.

 

[Apex]

I don't know about you, but the folks I am attracted to I certainly lust after, even if I don't act on that lust...So yeah, I think the inclination is the same thing.

I also have issue with religions becoming directly involved (whether through a call to action, or request for support, or through threat of excommunication, or withholding of communion or what not) in secular politics.

I don't care how many good works a religion does in the world, you could feed the entirety of the known universe as a religious duty and in my mind all of those good works might as well not exist the moment that religion advocates stripping a group of people of their non-religious aka secular rights regardless of reasoning. At that point the religion as a whole, in my mind, is evil and worthy of nothing but my contempt.

The post you quoted is three years old, and the poster is no longer on this forum.

 

[Duck]

I think I see what you're saying, as much as it is possible for me to see what you're saying without having walked in your shoes. I would never presume to say I know how it must be for you, because I don't. I can't possibly know. That's why I so seldom get involved in discussions on this topic. Every time I do, I feel as if I am out-of-line to even have an opinion. I don't know how it is to be Black or Asian. I don't know how it is to be male. I don't know how it is to be deaf or blind or morbidly obese. I don't know how it is to be gay. How can I even presume to see things from the perspective of someone whose experiences are so different from my own?

Wow, it is actually pretty rare to hear someone say this, thank you.

Okay, we believe that marriage is an institution established by God himself. We don't see it as a political or social institution but as a religious ordinance for which God set the rules. We don't believe it's man's right to change God's laws -- for any reason. I think that was the gist of what the LDS leadership was trying to say. We know that God gave men and women sexual desire primarily (though not exclusively) for the propogation of the species. He ordained marriage for the purpose of establishing family units which, according to the Latter-day Saints, are to be eternal in nature. Members of my Church (whether they be straight or gay) recognize this -- at least objectively so -- and know that marriage and families are part of God's Plan and that (as pointed out in the article) those who do not have the opportunity to marry in this life will be given that opportunity in the next. We see life as a "nano-second" (as one of the two men giving the interview said) out of eternity. Eighty or ninely years might seem like a long time right now, but in the overall scheme of things it's really not.

If marriage is an institution ordained strictly by god and only for the way that god wants it to be and is only sacred when done in the way that god wants, could you point out the verses and all of that where god said something about filing joint income taxes? Or for that matter about both spouses working outside the home for pay? or regarding the female being allowed to make healthcare decisions for the male?

While I agree with a lot of what the article said, I do have my own feelings on civil unions. I am in favor of them, and I don't believe that a gay or lesbian couple living next door to me is going to adversely affect my life in any way. So why would I go along with civil unions and not marriage?

So, have you and yours made to dissociate the civil, secular rights associated currently with the word and institution of marriage with the religious ritual ordained by god in the way that god wants it to be done? OR have your efforts gone, however indirectly via tithes, towards stripping others of civil, secular rights?

I probably haven't said anything worth much but I hope that at least I've not done any harm. One thing you might be able to help me understand, Amy, is why same-sex couples are so strongly determined to marry as opposed to simply have their civil rights protected. Obviously, no one can stop a same-sex couple from co-habitating, so if your union was recognized by the laws of the land, why is it important to you that the Church (not the LDS Church specifically, but "the Church" in general) also recognize it?

I used to, personally, not care about the word marriage, as long as my rights were granted. However, a number of cases, both in and out of courts changed my mind. Unfortunately, I cannot link any of these, so I realize that partly my confrontational tone earlier will probably be off-putting, but here you go, some anecdotal reasons why the word marriage is important.

A man's partner was injured in a hit-and-run accident in NY City. The two had a civil union in Vermont. The partner died from an embolism introduced during treatment at the hospital for his broken leg. Since NY does not recognize either same-sex marriage, nor civil unions, the wrongful death lawsuit was thrown out, because essentially, they were not related (in the eyes of the law). Had these two been married, there would not have been an issue.

New Jersey allows same sex civil unions, but not same sex marriage. Some corporations operating in New Jersey (and subject to New Jersey's non-discrimination laws) were not recognizing, nor allowing same sex partners to be added to employee's healthcare plans based simply on the fact that they were not married. Subsequent to this a commission in New Jersey found that civil unions were not equal to marriage (not necessarily due to this particular issue).

A man died in Oklahoma. Due to inadequate legal counsel, there was a problem with his will. As a result, his partner of 50+ years was not recognized as his heir, and the man was ruled to have died intestate, reverting his property to his very religious, conservative kin, who then began charging his partner rent, and sued for back rent for the period that he was living with his partner. Regardless of the issues regarding proper construction of the will, under current law his kin could challenge the will, and his partner, not benefiting from rights of survivorship granted automatically by a marriage license would have had to pay exorbitant taxes on the property.

These are some of the reasons I changed my thoughts about what one calls one's legally recognized secular relationship.

Personally, I realize that in the eyes of christianity in general, I am doomed, evil, a destroyer of families, molester of children, and all around naughty individual, in part because I am unrepentant about myself, and also because I left the christian church in my youth and don't really ever see my self going back. So really, "the church" can keep its recognition of my relationships to itself, I don't need or want its "blessing".

 

[Duck]

The post you quoted is three years old, and the poster is no longer on this forum.

Ah, it was showing as a new thread, or with new posts on my system.

 

[MSizer]

Talk about thread resurrection...


What are talking about?

I mean that the prophet (I believe he's referred to as) made the distinction between homosexual desires and homosexual activities. If I understood correctly, he basically stated that god didn't say homosexual desires are sinful, but that homosexual activity is. Therefore, in order to live a life in harmony with god's command, homosexuals must abstain. Correct? What I'm saying is it's easy for him, proabably a heterosexual, whose sexual desires are "in harmony" with god's command (he can have a wife and sex with no problem). What if god had said "heterosexual activity is sinful". How many people do you think would lead a life without sin? Very few I expect. Therefore, it's my opinion that people need to mind their own business about sexuality, because I highly doubt they'd be able to live by thier own convictions if the circumstances were turned on them. Furthermore, the church is claiming to be a path to salvation, so people who are indoctrinated young by this, but who happen to be gay, are forced into a life of awful stress because of the church. I think it's awful and the church people should be ashamed of it.

 

[T-Dawg]

could you point out the verses and all of that where god said something about filing joint income taxes?

Joint income taxes? Is that what they call that unconstitutional discount from taxes that married people get? I personally think that it's unconstitutional (the state is not to make a law favoring a particular religion, in this case any religion that advocates marriage), and is part of what secularizes and destroys marriages - if there weren't a financial incentive to get married, more people would probably wait before rushing into marriage, and thus the divorce rate would probably go down a bit, and marriage would lose it's secular value and go to it's original purpose of being nothing other than a religious ceremony, thus more marriages would actually be based on love and commitment instead of lust and money.

reverting his property to his very religious, conservative kin, who then began charging his partner rent, and sued for back rent for the period that he was living with his partner.

That's atrocious. Any "religious" man that would commit such a scam deserves to be sent to the gulag (or whatever the American equivalent, which I'm sure we have by now, is called) on the grounds of stealing, hypocrisy, and injustice. Seriously, how religious can one be if they can't even get the Ten Commandments straight (Isn't there a "Thou shalt not steal"? And a "Thou shalt not covet"?)?

I realize that in the eyes of christianity in general, I am doomed, evil, a destroyer of families, molester of children, and all around naughty individual

Doomed, maybe, but where'd all that other stuff come from? As a Christian myself, I have no idea where these people would have gotten the idea that you were a destroyer of families and molester of children, unless, of course, you actually did molest children, which I doubt...
If people have actually called you those things merely for not being Christian, then the church is in even worse shape than I thought... bleh, one of these days I'm gonna have to make a new religion, with the exact same teachings as Christianity, but without all the man-made laws, and with more emphasis on actually following the religion instead of just carrying the name around...

What if god had said "heterosexual activity is sinful". How many people do you think would lead a life without sin? Very few I expect.

Theoretically, "priests" aren't supposed to marry (I don't even get why catholics have priests, I'm pretty sure Jesus specifically said something about everyone being their own priests and not needing a priest class), and they have to be celibate, but as we've seen, many don't do a very good job =/. Of course, if heterosexuality was sinful, humanity would die out in a generation XD.

Furthermore, the church is claiming to be a path to salvation, so people who are indoctrinated young by this, but who happen to be gay, are forced into a life of awful stress because of the church.

Forced? We can leave at any time, although depending on the area, you might get some social pressure. Duck left his church, after all.