LDS Stance on Homosexuality

[Green Gaia]

It has nothing to do with fairness. There are many thoughts, urges, inclinations, and so on they we are not to act on because they are considered sin. Homosexuality is not an exception.

Well, this is where you completely lose me. I don't understand how fairness isn't a factor. I also don't understand why all of homosexuality is made to be sin. I understand there can be heterosexual sexual sin and homosexual sexual sin, but heterosexuality across the board isn't made to be bad. Why is homosexuality? Why are homosexuals homosexual if they can't be homosexual?

 

[Katzpur]

I understand there are many heterosexual people who would like to get married, but haven't met the right person. But at least the church leaves the door open to them and gives them the option should they find that right person. Homosexuals have no option for that and no choice. That's what I'm saying. Across the board whether they've found the love of their life or not, they are denied simply because of their sexuality.

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?

From what I understand from the quotes, they are saying it is OK to be gay, but you can't act on it, you can't get married. Why? If there is something so wrong with you that the church says you don't deserve to be married to the person you love, then why do they say it's OK to have these feelings in the first place. I'm confused...

I'm really not trying to debate, but just trying to understand how LDS see that is being fair to homosexuals.

I know you're just trying to understand, Amy, and I don't think I'm going to be able to help you do that. Did you read the entire article? It kind of addressed some of your questions, but maybe not to your satisfaction. I'll try to explain how I'm interpreting their remarks, and while I may not do a really good job of it, I hope you'll at least know that my heart is in the right place and that it's not my intention to pass judgment.

I've never heard any LDS leader say anything to the effect that there is "something wrong with you" if you're gay. I was personally quite relieved to hear them say that they didn't want to get involved in the nature vs. nuture issue because that was something they don't have the professional expertise to address. Speaking personally, I positively do not believe that we choose our sexual orientation. Whether it's something we're born with or whether social or environmental issues in early childhood contribute, I wouldn't venture a guess. But I don't believe anybody sits down and makes a conscious decision who they are going to be sexually attracted to. Nobody told me I was supposed to like boys until long after I figured I liked boys. I don't see homosexuality as a "illness," and I don't think the LDS leadership does either. It's simply a part of who we are.

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.

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? Well, as I said before, I see marriage as something God established and that only He has the right to change the rules on. But I do believe that same-sex couples deserve to have the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. As do all Latter-day Saints, I see homosexual sex as sinful, but I also see heterosexual sex outside of marriage as sinful. But I'm kind of a realist, too, and I don't believe you can legislate morality. Gay and lesbian couples are going to continue to have sex regardless of what I think of the practice. They are also going to fall deeply in love with one another, and whether their sexual behavior is in accordance with what God wants or not, I don't believe we have the right to tell them that they cannot name one another in life insurance policies or anything of that sort.

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?

 

[Green Gaia]

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?

Thank you for your response, Kathyrn. I'll try to answer your questions.

Actually I don't care if other churches recognize it or not, my church does and on the religious front that is good enough for me. Getting civil rights protected is what we want and need and civil marriage is the means to do it. Legally, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage and do not provide the same rights and responsiblities that civil marriage does. In saying that same sex couples should settle for civil unions the secular government telling same sex couples their unions are not as deserving of rights and responsiblities as heterosexual unions. It's one thing for a church to say that in regards to religious marriage, but we think the government should uphold the constitution and treat all couples equally and fairly. It's also about being treated as equals and not second-class by our secular government because of our sexuality.

 

[Bishka]

God never said that lesbians were bad, I'm pretty sure.

And neither have we. Please do not assume that.

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for your response, Kathyrn. I'll try to answer your questions.

Actually I don't care if other churches recognize it or not, my church does and on the religious front that is good enough for me. Getting civil rights protected is what we want and need and civil marriage is the means to do it. Legally, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage and do not provide the same rights and responsiblities that civil marriage does. In saying that same sex couples should settle for civil unions the secular government telling same sex couples their unions are not as deserving of rights and responsiblities as heterosexual unions. It's one thing for a church to say that in regards to religious marriage, but we think the government should uphold the constitution and treat all couples equally and fairly. It's also about being treated as equals and not second-class by our secular government because of our sexuality.

Okay, Amy, I am obviously missing some important information. I'm totally lost and need your input. You see, for a Latter-day Saint, any marriage other than a temple marriage is considered to be a civil marriage, even if it's performed in a church. (That probably seems really weird to everybody else, but that's how it is for us.) What do you mean by a "civil union" and why is it not equal to a "civil marriage"? Here I've been thinking that a civil union would provide all of the civil rights a "married" couple would have. I guess I don't have a clue, huh? What rights does a civil union not provide?

 

[Green Gaia]

Okay, Amy, I am obviously missing some important information. I'm totally lost and need your input. You see, for a Latter-day Saint, any marriage other than a temple marriage is considered to be a civil marriage, even if it's performed in a church. (That probably seems really weird to everybody else, but that's how it is for us.) What do you mean by a "civil union" and why is it not equal to a "civil marriage"? Here I've been thinking that a civil union would provide all of the civil rights a "married" couple would have. I guess I don't have a clue, huh? What rights does a civil union not provide?

When I say civil marriage I'm referring to legal marriage regardless of religious affiliation or not.

Basically, no federal protections are included with a civil union. Civil unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

Some of the differences between Civil Unions and Civil Marriage:


Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state.


Immigration: A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.


Taxes: Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples are not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


Benefits: The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

 

[Katzpur]

When I say civil marriage I'm referring to legal marriage regardless of religious affiliation or not.

Basically, no federal protections are included with a civil union. Civil unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

Some of the differences between Civil Unions and Civil Marriage:


Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state.


Immigration: A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.


Taxes: Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples are not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


Benefits: The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Wow, thanks, Amy. You really educated me. See I was thinking in terms of the things you listed in the "Benefits" paragraph. It's these kinds of things all men and women totally have a right to. I guess I'd have to say that my opinion on the subject differs substantially from the official LDS stance. I don't know where that puts me, though, since I still see marriage as a religious ordinance. :help: I don't know where I fit in now!!!!

 

[Green Gaia]

Wow, thanks, Amy. You really educated me. See I was thinking in terms of the things you listed in the "Benefits" paragraph. It's these kinds of things all men and women totally have a right to. I guess I'd have to say that my opinion on the subject differs substantially from the official LDS stance. I don't know where that puts me, though, since I still see marriage as a religious ordinance. :help: I don't know where I fit in now!!!!

This is just my opinion, but I don't think it has to be a crisis of faith for anyone regardless of one's religion's view of marriage. It is very clear in our society that there is religious marriage (the ceremony you have in a church or temple) and legal or civil marriage (the marriage license). While we usually view the two events as one in the same, they are not. One does not reliant upon the other, meaning you can have one without the other. A couple married in a temple who forgot to go to the county clerk and get a marriage license is not married in the eyes of the law, even though they would be married in the religious sense. Couples married by a justice of the peace at the courthouse forego a religious ceremony, but are just as married in the eyes of the laws as someone who had a religious ceremony.

Those in favor of same sex marriage aren't concerned with changing anyone's idea of a religious marriage, but simply we want the same that heterosexuals have in regards to legal or civil marriage.

 

[nutshell]

Because God said so?

No.

God never said that lesbians were bad, I'm pretty sure.

I didn't say God said "lesbians were bad."

It is well documented, however, that God does not approve of homosexual behavior.

 

[nutshell]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is not a thread about the fairness of God or is it a forum for open discussion about homosexuality.

The specific purpose of this thread is to discuss the LDS church's "official" information regarding homosexuality.

 

[nutshell]

Would anyone else besides Maize and Petshop like to comment on this topic?

 

[standing_alone]

Would anyone else besides Maize and Petshop like to comment on this topic?

I would, but I think Maize did a pretty good job explaining some of my concerns as well. I read most of the article, but that was yesterday. The only thing I can think of saying is that the LDS Church is entitled to whatever opinion on whatever issue and can demand of their members to live in accordance to their beliefs and own morality. I don't see why my opinion should really matter nor should my own opinion or other non-LDS Church members' opinions dictate the Church's view. I can at least tolerate and respect the Church's right to that opinion. However, I don't happen to agree with it and don't believe the Church should dictate what happens to non-members of that faith or in secular law - which I honestly don't see the LDS Church doing, so that's really not a problem. If a homosexual Mormon is fine with remaining celebate, that's their choice, and if the LDS Church believes that "active" homosexuals are not permissable in the Church, that's their right. I also must say that the LDS members I have encountered here on RF have never treated me with anything but respect and that's worth alot. I hope this is the sort of response you were looking for, nutshell. If I didn't answer to what you wanted, I'll be willing to answer what you actually did.

 

[dawny0826]

From what I understand...our church believes the same as the LDS church on this topic.

 

[Katzpur]

I would, but I think Maize did a pretty good job explaining some of my concerns as well. I read most of the article, but that was yesterday. The only thing I can think of saying is that the LDS Church is entitled to whatever opinion on whatever issue and can demand of their members to live in accordance to their beliefs and own morality. I don't see why my opinion should really matter nor should my own opinion or other non-LDS Church members' opinions dictate the Church's view. I can at least tolerate and respect the Church's right to that opinion. However, I don't happen to agree with it and don't believe the Church should dictate what happens to non-members of that faith or in secular law - which I honestly don't see the LDS Church doing, so that's really not a problem. If a homosexual Mormon is fine with remaining celebate, that's their choice, and if the LDS Church believes that "active" homosexuals are not permissable in the Church, that's their right. I also must say that the LDS members I have encountered here on RF have never treated me with anything but respect and that's worth alot. I hope this is the sort of response you were looking for, nutshell. If I didn't answer to what you wanted, I'll be willing to answer what you actually did.

Actually, that's a great answer. You certainly haven't labeled us as a bunch of homophobics, and we could hardly expect you to be in agreement with our doctrine. Thanks for the response.

 

[Katzpur]

From what I understand...our church believes the same as the LDS church on this topic.

When I saw that you'd posted something, I knew this was what you were going to say.

 

[dawny0826]

When I saw that you'd posted something, I knew this was what you were going to say.

You probably think I'm such a kiss up.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'd like to remind everyone that this is not a thread about the fairness of God or is it a forum for open discussion about homosexuality.

My apologies. I was wanting to answer the questions asked of me.

 

[DeepShadow]

Thanks for your answer. I guess now I have to wonder why God would be so unjust to homosexuals to deny them love and partnership with another person.

This is a very crucial question, Maize! Thanks for asking it. I think it strikes at the heart of the nature of God and mankind. After all, many people other than homosexuals are denied these things as well. I work with the gamut of physical and mental disabilities in my profession, and I wonder why God would allow a person to be born sterile, or with such serious physical disabilities that they can't ever pursue any kind of romantic relationship despite having the same ability to love as all the rest of us. Why do children die before they become adults? Why do some people search and search for love and just never, ever find it?

I don't know the answer, but it's certainly a question worth asking. Any other thoughts on the issue are appreciated.

Edit: it appears I've wandered close to the line of Nutshell's last post, but IMO the question is a valid one to this discussion. Is God's treatment of homosexuals any different than his treatment of someone with, say, spina bifida?

To draw this even more on topic, this issue touches on other aspects of LDS doctrine. We believe that God expects no more of homosexuals than he expects of teenagers before marriage, or divorced or widowed or unmarried adults. He also expects total fidelity within marriage; is this an unfair restraint, to force you to remain with someone when you may find someone else more attractive?

 

[Halcyon]

Do you think the stance the Church has taken is a step in the right direction or going backwards? And why?

Honestly, i think its a step backwards. I think the Church would get more converts if it were more tolerant, i also think the concept of a God who accepts people for who they are would be a great appeal.

To take it to the extreme, if when i die i find myself in paradise and that the LDS religion was the right way to go - I'd deny God to his face. He's not the sort of person i like to hang around with.

 

[Smoke]

It is well documented, however, that God does not approve of homosexual behavior.

That's an interesting proposition. There's no evidence whatsoever that God exists, but it's "well documented" that he doesn't approve of homosexual behavior. If it is, we must admit that it's equally "well documented" that he doesn't approve of Mormonism.