Related Information to LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays

LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays - Page 24

Name: Carlos

Comments: My little brother and I discussed this issue and we came to our own conclusion to solve this issue.

I wonder what is you guys opinion on this.

We decided that "Marriage" becomes a religious ordinance. You can not marry through the government anymore.

The government then states "Civil union" between any 2 people.

The reality is by banning gay marriage does not decrease the number of gays. More homosexuals are inevitable.

We need to divide Religion and government so religions can still practice their "marriages", and governments their "civil union".

Or is it more complex than that?

Gays Mormon Marriage Gay Perspective LDS

The Church has released an statement with regards to California high court decision to uphold Proposition 8.

Source 7

LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays Studies Doctrine Mormon

My response to the questions posted.

1. Do we want Homosexual marriage to be on the same footing as Marriage between
a Man and Wife?
Why not. It does not make my marriage less meaningful. I am
concerned with equal rights under law.


2. Are you going to teach your children that different types of Marriage and living
arrangements are equivalent? I have the right to teach my children
anything I feel important. Why does gay marriage mean I have to teach my
children what you suggest? Do we teach our children that a civil marriage is on
the same footing as a temple marriage? Can I teach them that a gay marriage
under law is valid, but that a temple marriage is something more? I am sure at
school they would tell my child that a temple marriage is no different then a civil.
I am not sure how this is relevant to the whole issue?


3. Do you want schools to teach your children that they have a choice on the type of
marriage that they want? (or will you teach this to them?) Again, do I already
not teach them this when I am teaching about temple marriage and the LDS
concept of marriage which contradicts the world's understanding of marriage
already. As a parent I am already teaching such concepts already. Ultimately
do I not teach them that they have a choice in all that they do?


4. Roles of Man and Women will be null and void, as far as society is concerned. I am sure that some of you celebrate this, but does this bode well for a generation of children who are raised in homes without the Male and female roles?
I am not sure I understand how my role as a heterosexual man changes if
gays can marry? I still will be a husband, a father, a priesthood holder, a
provider. What changes? Besides the roles of man and woman are cultural
based, they change all the time as necessity dictates. Look in the LDS culture,
woman and men's roles have changed with through the years with the
dissolution of polygamy and the accepting of woman's rights. Today LDS
woman are in the job force just as much as the typical American woman is. I
am not sure how this correlation with gay marriage changes our roles any
more then they already are.

5. Should there be any limits on what type of Marriages the State should accept? Yes
there should, and that should be defined by the ability to enter a legal contract.
There will be no animals marring people because animals cannot enter legal
contracts, such ideas are erroneous and unfounded.


6. Should we abolish all societal standards due to the fact that there will always be a group who will rebel against those standards (rights of the individual vs. The right of the society?
Its not a matter of social standards. Its a matter of rights. No one is taking
away your standards, the church will still be able to not accept gay marriages.
How does this change your standards or the church's standards? Would you
then not support the church in the late 1890's position of polygamy? Besides
was not the fear of African American civil rights seem as a change in
standards? the term "social standards" can be a code for withholding rights.

7. When the view that Heterosexual Marriage should be the standard, if not the exclusive standard, will anyone who disagrees be persecuted? (Oh yea, this is already happening, Miss California.)
I am not following you? Are you saying that those who do not agree with the
heterosexual marriage will be persecuted? I do not think that anyone should
be persecuted. I also do not think that Miss. California was persecuted. I think
that this term "persecuted" is much more serious then what she endured. I do
not think that her experiences were equal the Jewish expereince in the
holocaust, or the Saints in Missouri, Hans Mill, or in Nauvoo. I think we need to
stop trivializing the concept of persecution out of the respect and seriousness of
those who did suffer persecution. I think that people have the right to speak
there mind and their opinions even if it is not so nice, and this is the case with
Miss California.


8. When will the view that Man/Woman Marriage is the only standard, be considered a hate crime and prosecuted by jail time?
Before answering that this will never happen, do not forget that the house just passed a law (H.R. 1913 April 30th 2009) that would open up prosecution for preacher's who taught against Homosexual marriage if a parishioner did something violent against another based on this speech.
Come on its about time we get away from all of that right wing rhetoric. It is ridiculous to this that H.R. 1913 will persecute those who preach their beliefs against homosexuals. I think that the bill of rights secures that. If you read the language it is very clear that this is just not the case.

Just to make sure nobody's words are suppressed, however, the bill addresses the issue directly with two "Rules of Construction" to make things crystal clear to anyone trying to interpret the legislation:

S. 909, introduced April 28, 2009: (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Of course, as the language above notes, the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech in every circumstance. This might be a good time to recall Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States. Free speech, while a core American value, doesn't mean one can "falsely shout fire in a theater" and thereby cause a stampede, Holmes wrote. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger."

The upshot here: Speaking disapprovingly of homosexuals from the pulpit would be one thing; encouraging one's congregation to form a lynching posse Saturday at 4 p.m. At the water tower is quite another.

So please stop listening to Glen Beck and Rush and take the time to read and understand.

Page 24 Gays Mormon Marriage Gay Perspective LDS

These questions are based on my religious values that I believe, and have nothing to do with Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

We just disagree on most of the answers to the questions, as do all who answer them for themselves.

But Society is trying to determine the answers to the questions so the debate will continue.

I think it is not valid to compare the civil rights movement of the 60's to the fight to change the definition of Marriage. Marriage has been considered the joining of opposites, or the male and female by all societies and religions. Skin color and sexual orientation are not similar, and it is amazing that anyone would associate the two.

Marriage of two men is not a civil rights issue, as there are already restrictions on two people marrying (Brother's and Sisters, Daughter and Father.) This is not a ridiculous example, as there are relatives that would like to marry, but Society and Religion fight against this trend. If it was strictly allowing two individuals to enter into a contractual relationship, as you have indicated must be allowed, then we would be required to allow any two people to marry. If you think this is ridiculous please explain why a mother and a son should not be allowed to marry, if it is strictly a contract.

Everyone has the same equal rights to marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years (man and woman) regardless of sexual orientation. This is not a civil rights issue.

Society should uphold the standard rather then destroy it. If this is true, I would argue that Marriage between a man and a woman (Almost universally accepted as the ideal standard) can only succeed, if it is the only legitimate form of marriage. This view is in line with the doctrines of the LDS Church, and it is why I believe society should maintain the standard of Marriage between Man and Woman.

Gays Mormon Marriage Gay Perspective LDS

Geez this forum seem to have quite over dramatic members, how exactly gay marriage is going to cause the complete destruction of society?

The righteous? Who are the righteous dbakers? Arent we all sinners?

LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays

What are your thoughts about some of the remarks President Packer gave in Conference today?

LDS Perspective Gay Marriage Mormon Gays - Page 24

What I find most interesting is not that President Packer gave a talk explaining the Church's view that Homosexuality is a sin, but that his talk is being portrayed as hate speach, and that people are actually that surprised that a member of the First Presidency would condemn Homosexual behavior.

I do not think God has ever in History approved of Homosexuality as a lifestyle. Why would the Church change now based on pressure from Liberal activists and the powerful Homosexual Lobbies?

LDS Perspective Gay Marriage Mormon Gays Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 24

Hey there dbackers...I think that's the main point right there. Packer doesn't seem to recognize the difference between homosexual attraction and the homosexual act in itself . If a guy who is a faithful lds member struggles with same sex attraction and can still partake of the sacrament, have a temple recommend, go to a mission and even hold a calling then why does it Packer calls that impure? You know what am I saying? The fact that he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge a difference is a lil disturbing to say the least.

Edited: SuzieSu on 7th Oct, 2010 - 6:26pm