Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS Church responds to Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 10:40 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bob K
porland, OR

Will anyone who has any information about ill effects of a decade of marriage equality in Mass, Canada, etc, please enlighten me.
In 2008, I saw those TV ads for Prop 8, which involved people judging very liberal schools in MA and CA, and claiming that Gays wanted to take the rights of all parents to control their kids' moral education. I figure if a school is in an lds neighborhood, in can lean toward mormon values, and in a liberal town, a liberal school makes sense.

There is no LEGAL argument against marriage equality, only moral/religious arguments, which mostly do not belong in civil law. This is why Prop 8 keeps getting struck down, not because there was a Gay judge or a liberal conspiracy.

Marriage equality: marriage/procreation based churches cannot, as of yet, fathom fitting it in, when their own children are Gay and want it. Fear takes over, and turns to busybody actions trying to control secular people and members of liberal churches.

I personally think Jesus could find no harm in loving same-sex marriages.
The problem is churches adapting to today's reality

plainbrownwrapper
mid-state, TN

@Cougar in Texas --

"There are indeed life-long bisexuals who will desire ongoing relationships with both a man and a woman (polyamorous)."

Sure. But polyamory is not at all the same thing as bisexuality. There are polyamorous heterosexuals, polyamorous homosexuals, AND polyamorous bisexuals.

"You deny a form of religious oppression by stating that the example used was from Europe where there are officially recognized churches and therefore cannot apply in the US, then go on to use a court case in Canada (actually, only British Columbia) to show that polygamy will remain banned in the US. "

Sure.

Europe has state churches. We don't.

Canada has equal protection written into their constitution. Just like we do.

The situations are entirely different.

"And the BC case was upheld only due to the harmful nature of the specific polygamous unions then under review. "

Nope, sorry, you're completely wrong here.

From Judge Bauman's decision: "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

plainbrownwrapper
mid-state, TN

@zoar63 --

"This argument and many like it is the learning of men rationalizing away the scriptures and replacing them with their logic."

"Logic" is not a dirty word, zoar.

Many of us both think for ourselves AND have deeply held religious beliefs at the same time. Intelligent thought and religious faith are NOT incompatible, believe it or not.

@solsticelight --

"God does the judging, not us."

You are exactly right! Judging is GOD's job, not ours.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1

"If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 4:12

-

haggie
Visalia, CA

LDS4GayMarriage,

For Pete sake, so what if my wife wieghs three hundred pounds. I may like that. Who therefore has a right to ridicule her for how she looks and why wouldn't I defend her. Ridiculous! That's my wife. The State of California didn't defend the will of the people and is therefore in deriliction of their duties. Had a conservative government not defended gay marriage, there would be an uproar. Hypocrisy!

Furthermore, the Prophet has asked that we follow God and defend traditional marriage. So, if you are LDS and you are 4GayMarriage, why won't you follow the Prophet. Maybe that is just a convenient label (LDS4GayMarriage). I believe President Monson is the Prophet. Therefore if I have a personal position in opposition to what God has asked, I should follow the wisdom of God and adjust my position. However, your position which is in opposition to God's will, I assume you must think God is a fool, or President Monson has gone rogue.

The wisdom of man.....

haggie
Visalia, CA

Contrarius,

What is arrogance?

God says to His Prophet (Prophet being the spokesperson of God, Noah, Moses, Samuel, Thomas S. Monson, etc) tell the people to defend traditional marriage. Then folks like "LDS4GayMarriage" and the like say, I know more than God (and His Prophet) therefore I will not defend His commandments in fact I will work against them. Arrogance?

Would it be arrogance for a person who is not LDS to assume using God's word that "arrogance" really is the sin that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, when for centruries man and woman have been getting married and procreating and gays never have and now gays want to be married (but will still not be able to procreate)?

I believe in His Propeht so I will defend His word. "whether it is by Him or the mouth of His Prophets it is the same"

God's plan was to send us to earth to two loving parents so that we would have the opportunity to be raised in a way He thought was best. Any other way is a deviation from His plan.

Those who don't beleive President Monson is a prophet I appeal to common sense.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@haggie --

"What is arrogance? "

Well, assuming that "defending traditional marriage" requires opposing gay marriage is one good example of arrogance.

In reality, gay marriage does NOTHING to harm traditional marriage. So it is completely possible for a Mormon to support both his Prophet and gay marriage at the same time.

If you really want to defend traditional marriage, then focus on issues that will really HELP traditional marriage.

Fight divorce.

Fight unmarried cohabitation.

Encourage commitment.

Fighting against people who WANT to form committed, stable relationships will NOT help traditional marriage. In fact, it's counterproductive.

"for centruries man and woman have been getting married and procreating and gays never have"

This isn't actually true. In fact, gay people have been forming stable relationships and even getting married all the way back to Assyrian times (there are blessings for same-sex unions in Assyrian religious texts).

And as has been said many times before, gay couples can procreate in the very same ways that any other infertile couples can.

Go ahead and defend traditional marriage. But don't do it on the backs of people who aren't actually harming traditional marriage one tiny bit.

haggie
Visalia, CA

Contrariuserer

Two points:

1. My argument was against Contrarius's assettion that the reason S/G were destroyed was becasue they were arrogant not because they were gay. However, I explained that the Prophet said "no" to being gay and they denied obedience to the principle.

2. God has said "no" to gay marriages and regardless of my personal belief and statistics to the contrary, I either need to follow the Prophet and defend traditional marriage or not follow the prophet and not defend traditional marriage (and in the case of some people who profess they believe the Prophet is God's spokesman, they work against God's word). But in the end I need to realize that I have not followed the prophet.

Of course for those that think God and following prophets is not in vogue and/or works against what modern culture thinks is appropriate or acceptable, must also realize I am not your judge, I simply have an opinion and our democratic process must be defended even if you dont agree with my opinion. I feel the same for your rights even though I may feel you are on the wrong side of the issue.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

it's quite likely the court would have ruled differently had they been given a logical reason to do so. saying that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage doesn't resonate with people of higher intelligence who spend any time thinking about the subject.

had the court been given arguments that children need a mother and a father and had the people opposed to gay marriage promoted this instead it's quite likely they would have won.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@haggie --

"God has said "no" to gay marriages"

According to you. Many other religious people disagree with you. There are already many church denominations which are happy to perform gay weddings.

" I either need to follow the Prophet and defend traditional marriage or not follow the prophet and not defend traditional marriage"

Again -- "defending traditional marriage" does NOT require fighting against gay marriages. They are two separate issues.

"for those that think God and following prophets is not in vogue"

Many religious people SUPPORT gay rights. Gay rights are neither anti-religious nor anti-God.

kolob1
sandy, UT

I thought that the Mormons respected the law of the land. There is a conservative (like a good Mormon) Supreme Court. So what gives? Respect the law regardless of whether or not you favor it. It ios the Lord's will!!

kolob1
sandy, UT

Marriage is not the exclusive domain of institutional religion(s). Marriages were being performed 4000 years before the Bible and before the religions of the day captured the "rite" as an official act of their respective religion. If one wants to "marry" with a religious ceremony then one can, just like one may choose baptism. BUT Marriage is not an official responsibility or right of any religion. It is optional at best.It is the duty of our government to regulate marriage and if the Supreme Court has ruled so, then so be it.The Supreme Court did not rule that you HAD to marry anybody. Just keep you sanctified noses out of the way and let the gays be. The more you push the more you get pushed back. Gays don't want to be married in your church, far from it so don't worry.To those who claim that the "sanctity of marriage" is being destroyed, I would like to know what marriage is being sanctified? Their first marriage their second or their third. There is no such thing as sanctity of religion in the law of the land. Sanctity comes from within, nor from laws or preachers.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "kolob1" there is respect for the law, and there is rolling over and letting government officials do whatever they want.

I can respect the law, while fighting to change it to something better and more appropriate.

Marriage has been a religious rite for thousands of years. Religion was the guardian of marriage until about 150 years ago when governments decided to start issuing marriage certificates or licenses.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@Redshirt --

"Marriage has been a religious rite for thousands of years. Religion was the guardian of marriage until about 150 years ago when governments decided to start issuing marriage certificates or licenses."

Sorry, but you're completely wrong here.

Actually, the very first recorded marriages in the Western world -- way back in ancient Rome -- were CIVIL marriages. Even back then, marriages were very commonly celebrated with no religious rites at all.

Similarly, in ancient Greece, no specific ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only a mutual civil agreement that the couple would regard each other as husband and wife.

Furthermore, in Jesus' own time, marriage did not require any specific ceremony at all -- either religious OR civil. Oddly enough, Jesus apparently did not see any pressing need to change that arrangement.

Priests didn't become an essential part of Christian wedding ceremonies until the Middle Ages.

As one sacramental scholar, Joseph Martos, puts it: "Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony..."

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Contrariuserer" I don't know what bible you have been reading, but you are wrong. First of all, Jesus used the parable of the 10 virgins, and the events that are part of the wedding ceremony of the ancient Jewish people.

You should also look into Jewish history more. Jewish scholars can tell you all about the marriage rite according to the Law of Moses (this predates the greeks and romans). Marriage did in fact require a specific ceremony and had specific guidlines.

Contrariusest
Nashville, TN

@Redshirt1701 --

"Jesus used the parable of the 10 virgins, and the events that are part of the wedding ceremony of the ancient Jewish people."

Actually, the **only** even vaguely ceremonial element mentioned in that parable is the presence of oil lamps. No priests, no vows, no nothing.

Keep trying, Red.

"Jewish scholars can tell you all about the marriage rite according to the Law of Moses "

From Bible.ca, one of their pages describing Jewish weddings in history:

"Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we see today with the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue. The "wedding ceremony" is something that did not develop for hundreds of years after Jesus rose from the dead."

"Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)
i. The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".
ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.

Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.

Stage 3: The wedding feast"

Again -- nowhere are any priests or religious ritual necessary. These were CIVIL weddings.

Keep trying, Red.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

I'm disappointed in the Church's statement that seems to question government institutions if they don't follow church doctrines. CA state officials were the defendants in the Prop 8 case. They accepted the reasoned decision of the federal trial court after a fully expository trial. It is exclusively their judgement whether to spend limited state resources to appeal their losing position. In retrospect, weren't they right to avoid wasting CA tax money?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Contrariusest" So then you agree that indeed the Jewish people had a marriage ceremony (ceremonies do not have to have a priest or rabbi), and that their ceremonies pre-date the civil marriages that were performed in Rome, Greece, or other similar nations.

The Chuppah was part of the Law of Moses, that was given to Moses. You would have found that out if you had continued your research instead of going to one site alone. Had you done that, you would have found that before they engage in the Chuppah, they have the kiddushin, or religious cleansing, this is the part where the bride receives a blessing from her rabbi based on the blessing given to Rebecca, Pre Moses. This is all recorded in the Talmud, or Jewish Book of the Law.

2plainbrownwrappers
Nashville, TN

@Redshirt1701 --

For some reason I'm having trouble getting this to post. I'm cutting my reply down to see if it'll go through this time.

All the following are from the book: The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies --

"There was no rite or 'taking' in primitive marriage, only cohabitation."

"Changes in the perception of the institution of marriage did not necessarily effect immediate innovations in the method of establishing the marital status. For a long time cohabitation remained the only proof of marriage."

"The Talmud lists three methods of betrothing a woman: financial consideration given to a bride, a written bill of betrothal, and cohabitation (Kiddushin 2a)..." (these are ALTERNATE methods -- only one is required, though it was common to do all three)

"The method of cohabitation was outlawed in the third century (Kiddushin 12b).

IOW: until 300 years AFTER Jesus died, a couple could legally establish a marriage simply by moving in together.

Keep trying, Red.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "2plainbrownwrappers" keep trying, but the fact it is in the Talmud only proves it was a religious rite.

2plainbrownwrappers
Nashville, TN

@Redshirt1701 --

"Keep trying, but the fact it is in the Talmud only proves it was a religious rite."

Sex is not a "rite", Red.

For comparison -- the Bible records the levying of taxes. That doesn't mean that taxes are religious rites.

Your argument doesn't hold any water.

Keep trying, Red.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments