LDS Church Instructs Leaders on Same-Sex Marriage

[accadacca]

SALT LAKE CITY

[rockgremlin]

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded

Soooo....homosexuality is just a "trend?" :roflol:

The above paragraph makes three things clear: Homosexuals are immoral, homosexuals are improper, and homosexuals are the way they are because it's trendy.....but the church still loves and welcomes them.

Right.

[bigred72]

As usual, Acca drops the shit bomb and then disappears. Controversy sells. Maybe rename this section TMZ instead of Bogley. Nothing like reporting the noise again...... Now waiting for Beech to interject. Now everybody get the **** outside and do something fun.

[jman]

Soooo....homosexuality is just a "trend?" :roflol:

The above paragraph makes three things clear: Homosexuals are immoral, homosexuals are improper, and homosexuals are the way they are because it's trendy.....but the church still loves and welcomes them.

Right.

The only way this will be okay with you, is if the church accepts, marries and sanctions homosexual relations right?

What else is there to say and do when a church does not accept homosexual relations? It's okay to have thoughts and be one, but acting on those desires is different according to the doctrines of the church.

And, however, Heterosexual couples are held to same sexual standard.

[hank moon]

Controversy sells. Maybe rename this section TMZ instead of Bogley.

It might be part of the funding scheme...re-re-re-porting of divisive stuff gets traffic, so no more buried in the basement? I was (sorta) surprised to be denied access to Bogley's GD section from a hotel computer last week.

71496

[Scott P]

The above paragraph makes three things clear: Homosexuals are immoral, homosexuals are improper, and homosexuals are the way they are because it's trendy.....but the church still loves and welcomes them.

This is not correct.

Their position is that it IS NOT a sin or immoral to be homosexual. However, any sexual activity outside a traditional marriage is considered to be sinful*, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

It is correct that those feelings are completely natural. Like most religions though, the whole point of the religion is to overcome your natural desires and temptations for some type of reward after death. Almost all religions hold this same goal, though they all disagree on the means of getting there.

So, I can't speak for all religions, but as per the LDS religion’s viewpoint, sex outside marriage (including homosexual) is a sin even though being heterosexual or homosexual is not and even though those feelings are natural. On the other hand, no one should be disrespected or treated with violence for anything other than situations such as self-defense.

Also, it is hypocritical that many heterosexuals that claim to be moral only single out only homosexual sex instead of all other sex they consider to be sins as well. I’ve never seen a protest on pre-marital sex for example.

*The dictionary defines a sin as an offense against religious or moral law. So if anything was contrary to a religious teaching, regardless of which religion it is, it would be considered a sin. Several religions consider, for example, the act of being a Mormon to be a sin (I’m using that specific example only because I am a Mormon). To a Mormon however, drinking coffee is technically a sin.

So calling being a Mormon or drinking coffee a sin is technically accurate as per dictionary definition.

The important thing is to not judge people too harshly for their faults and differences, though many of us (including myself) are guilty of this ourselves at times.

================================================== ===============

Regardless of your viewpoints on gay marriage, it is inaccurate to claim that the LDS church says that being homosexual in itself is a sin.

[Iceaxe]

^^^^What he said.

I believe one of the main reasons the church is fighting so hard for the man/woman definition is that it makes the rest of their argument simple.... in other words... if gays can't marry, then they can't morally have sex and that solves the churches problems.



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[rockgremlin]

UGH...regardless of what any religion claims, gays deserve to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us "normal" people in society. Period. How is that such a difficult concept for our society to grasp?

[Iceaxe]

regardless of what any religion claims, gays deserve the right to be miserable like the rest of us "normal" people in society.

FTFY


:roflol: :roflol: :roflol:



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[ahansen60]

Regardless of your viewpoints on gay marriage, it is inaccurate to claim that the LDS church says that being homosexual in itself is a sin.



You are not born gay. It is a choice. The church is very clear on their stance. If someone makes the choice to have relations with the same sex it is a sin.


Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Sandstone Addiction]

UGH...regardless of what any religion claims, gays deserve to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us "normal" people in society. Period. How is that such a difficult concept for our society to grasp?

I agree...a homosexual couple shouldn't be excluded from the benefits/rights lawfully wedded heterosexual couples benefit from according to the laws of the land.

But, why does it have to be called a "marriage"?

Marriage has been defined throughout the ages as a man and woman. Why do we have to defile and desecrate the sanctity of this God given institution?

[Scott P]

You are not born gay. It is a choice.

From the LDS perspective, this is false, at least in most cases.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction


I agree...a homosexual couple shouldn't be excluded from the benefits/rights lawfully wedded heterosexual couples benefit from according to the laws of the land.

But, why does it have to be called a "marriage"?

From above:

The Church has advocated for rights for same-sex couples 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 traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

It seems that just calling it a civil union would avoid most of the controversy.

[rockgremlin]

You are not born gay. It is a choice.



BULLSHIT.

Why would all gay folks actively choose to dismiss their heterosexual tendencies to come out to their families, friends, co-workers, and everyone else they know to live a life of discrimination and hardship?

[rockgremlin]

The Church has advocated for rights for same-sex couples 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 traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.




How specifically would giving gays rights infringe on the integrity of the traditional family?

Not trolling, just really trying to wrap my mind around how giving equal treatment and rights to gays would be detrimental to traditional families.

[Scott P]

How specifically would giving gays rights infringe on the integrity of the traditional family?
Giving them rights really doesn't.

Changing the definition of marriage does from certain viewpoints.

Dictionary:[B]

in

[cchoc]

As far as I'm concerned the Mormon church, the Catholic church, various Protestant churches, etc., are free to council their parishioners to double check and make sure their marriage partner is of the opposite sex. Not everyone follows the Christian Bible nor interprets it the same way, so why should they listen to what the churches have to say. And I also think that when churches get directly involved in changing or creating laws they become lobbying organizations and should not be tax exempt.

[rockgremlin]

And I also think that when churches get directly involved in changing or creating laws they become lobbying organizations and should not be tax exempt.


YES!!

[ahansen60]

BULLSHIT.

Why would all gay folks actively choose to dismiss their heterosexual tendencies to come out to their families, friends, co-workers, and everyone else they know to live a life of discrimination and hardship?

I'll tell you what I believe people are born with. All of us are born with trials in life, we are born with weaknesses and tendencies. These weaknesses and tendencies are there to test us and to humble us. Some of us have a weakness/tendency towards homosexual activity, some of us have a weakness for alcoholism, for some it's anger/abuse, for some it's gambling, for some it's sex/pornography. The list goes on and on.

If we make the choice to give in to those weaknesses or tendencies, that is when it becomes a sin. Having an attraction or thoughts alone is not sin, it is acting on those thoughts where one crosses the boundary.

[cchoc]

It is fine for you to have your beliefs but to assume they are THE TRUTH for everyone is hubris, which is a big ol' sin itself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Brian in SLC]

I'll tell you what I believe people are born with. All of us are born with trials in life, we are born with weaknesses and tendencies. These weaknesses and tendencies are there to test us and to humble us. Some of us have a weakness/tendency towards homosexual activity, some of us have a weakness for alcoholism, for some it's anger/abuse, for some it's gambling, for some it's sex/pornography. The list goes on and on.

If we make the choice to give in to those weaknesses or tendencies, that is when it becomes a sin. Having an attraction or thoughts alone is not sin, it is acting on those thoughts where one crosses the boundary.

Hmm. You really think you had a choice to be heterosexual?

For me? I think I'm hardwired. Pardon the pun...ha ha.

Forget subjective morality/sin for a minute...

To thine own self be true...hmm...

POV show..."the Smith Family". Interesting to watch and ponder.

[ratagonia]

I'll tell you what I believe people are born with. All of us are born with trials in life, we are born with weaknesses and tendencies. These weaknesses and tendencies are there to test us and to humble us. Some of us have a weakness/tendency towards homosexual activity, some of us have a weakness for alcoholism, for some it's anger/abuse, for some it's gambling, for some it's sex/pornography. The list goes on and on.

If we make the choice to give in to those weaknesses or tendencies, that is when it becomes a sin. Having an attraction or thoughts alone is not sin, it is acting on those thoughts where one crosses the boundary.

Says who?

(if this is a discussion for LDS Members of LDS instruction, then I am over-stepping the boundaries. However, when LDS instruction becomes state (now Federal) law, IT oversteps the boundary into secular governmental function. "We the People" is an inclusive "WE", not a "We the ruling majority of the People"...)

(and, my apologies for picking on you, ahansen60. Nothing personal.

Your moral challenge, ahansen60, seems to be hubris - the belief that your tiny, minority (though locally majority), narrow, interpretation of God's will is correct in that it applies to ALL people, regardless of religious faith or lack thereof, and is CORRECT... and additionally should be incorporated into local, state and federal law.

Sidebar: Islam vs. Christainity: there is an important difference between what a blasphemer is in Islam and in (post 1600) Christianity. In modern Christianity, to blaspheme, one has to be a believer. If I, as an atheist, say something bad about God, it is perhaps offensive to believers, but it is not blasphemy, an insult to God. Or more accurately, it is a problem between God and me, not between you and me. In modern Islam, ANY person who says anything bad about Allah or His Prophet (or depicts either in art) is guilty of blasphemy and is to be put to death. Close Sidebar

According to Deuteronomy, there are a lot of things that are "an abomination", including, maybe, homosexual union. Hard to say really, since Yahweh, being Yahweh, doesn't say things very clearly, but kinda implies this or that. Also included on the "abomination list" are such things as eating shellfish, wearing blends of fibers, and collecting honey from nests in animal skulls. These "abominations" don't seem to get much press these days... Come to think of it, the translation of the Hebrew word to "Abomination" is rather a stretch - seems "Against Ritual" is a more accurate translation, basically meaning that if you do any of these things, then you are not a very good (Hasidic) Jew.

I suspect, ahansen60, that YOU are not a very good Orthodox Hasidic Jew. Do you keep the Sabbath, performing no work (including turning on light switches, cooking food, etc.) from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset? Then YOU are an abominator!!!

See how it works, when you really dig into it? Sure is a tough row to hoe, establishing strict moral guidelines for all people on earth!

The good news about Deuteronomy is that it really only applies to strict Orthodox Hasidic Jews, and not to the rest of us. And it is a MORAL challenge for those who CHOSE to take it up, who exercise Free Agency in choosing that challenge, rather than something that needs to be encoded into state or federal law as... wait, what's that you say? Because YOUR faith has misinterpreted the scripture, these prohibitions (including presumeably not eating shellfish, nor wearing blended fibers and using honey taken from skulls????) should be enshrined into our state and federal laws???? WTF????

To get back to it: I am perfectly fine with your interpretation for YOU that the LDS Church teaches that succumbing to homosexual desires is sinful. I agree that you are the EXPERT of what doctrine applies to you. However, even applying your interpretation of LDS doctrine to other Members is fraught with hubris; let alone applying that doctrine to non-Members who happen to live in Utah; or applying it to gay LDS members who may or may not have exercised their free agency to incorporate this aspect of official church doctrine into their own relationship with God.

Your (and the Church's) compulsion to dictate and control the Free Agency of other persons using the blunt instrument of the State and Federal government is an insult to the will of God - an act of blasphemy, perhaps not against your version of God, but certainly against our shared vision - the land of the free, the home of the brave.

Tom :moses:

[Absolute Gravity]

I'll tell you what I believe people are born with.
...a weakness/tendency towards homosexual activity, some of us have a weakness for alcoholism, for some it's anger/abuse, for some it's gambling, for some it's sex/pornography...

And for some it's patronizing bullshit, apparently.

[ahansen60]

Not trying to tell anyone how to live. I felt that some people had misunderstood the LDS Church's beliefs and stance on the issue. Simply trying to clear up any confusion or misinterpretation. If you don't like hearing it from me, go to the church's website. It's all on there too.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Sun Dance]

(if this is a discussion for LDS Members of LDS instruction, then I am over-stepping the boundaries. However, when LDS instruction becomes state (now Federal) law, IT oversteps the boundary into secular governmental function. "We the People" is an inclusive "WE", not a "We the ruling majority of the People"...)

Your moral challenge, ahansen60, seems to be hubris - the belief that your tiny, minority (though locally majority), narrow, interpretation of God's will is correct in that it applies to ALL people, regardless of religious faith or lack thereof, and is CORRECT... and additionally should be incorporated into local, state and federal law.


The difference here is that the people of this state CHOSE to impose its will on the (local) minority by restricting marriage to hetetosexual couples. So yes, it is "We the ruling majority of the People." When some activist judge prances in here purporting to speak for the federal government and overturns the will of the people of the state in a matter specifically reserved for the states to decide, then the right of the people to make its own decisions is being severely eroded and our republic is further weakened. Even SCOTUS (for the time being) has agreed on this point in principle.

Notice how no one squealed when the other umpteen states decided to legalize gay marriage? As long as it goes along with the current federal administration's agenda, hey, no harm no foul.

Just wait a few years, Tom. Even the majority of the people of Utah will eventually approve gay marriage and marijuana.