All opinions are always 100% honest and my own. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. I also participate in: CJ Affiliate; eBay Partner Network; Rakuten Affiliate Network; ShareASale; Walmart Affiliate Program; independent affiliate networks.
Really? I don't see it. If they aren't humans then what planet are they from?
I heard this argument from someone supporting a certain candidate for president recently, “Well, you just have to vote for Obama because he at least treats gay people like humans, unlike Romney.” Seriously? I could cite many examples of how Romney treats people like humans regardless of their sexual preferences. Whether or not Romney is willing to seek to redefine God's laws has nothing to do with how he treats anybody, gay or otherwise.
What is with this ridiculously extreme idea that people who do not support gay marriage are evil, heartless, and out to trample on the rights of others. I do not support gay marriage. I do support gay people. It's not that hard really. Christ supported many people that were not living God's laws. He still does. He also did not ever redefine or casually brush off any of God's laws while in support of said people. He never will.
How did this become about a civil right? Why do we need a redefining on something that has been defined since God put man and woman on the earth? I am not being facetious here. I really don't get all the hoopla. It seems simple to me; man + woman = marriage. How do sexual preferences/choices define a minority group? I won't ask you what you do in your bedroom and you don't ask me what I do in mine.
I am not saying that all people shouldn't be treated with civility and respect. I am just completely dumbfounded as to how this has anything at all to do with social freedoms and equalities. I don't buy the sob stories either. Not because I am not compassionate, but because I understand that anything can happen to anyone at anytime. If a person chooses to live in such a way that they might need legal standing in particular circumstances, then do something about it. Lawyers are a dime a dozen these days. Get one. Have an agreement drawn up. It is that easy.
It is a slippery slope we play on when we seek to redefine the laws of God. I do not understand the logic or reasoning behind the statements of people that profess to believe in God and are then adamant that people who choose to be with members of the same gender should be afforded the “right” to marry one another. Isn't marriage ordained of God? Hasn't he defined it already? Shouldn't He have the last word? I suppose He will. I wonder what we will allow His laws, and this country, to suffer until then.
Can you believe in God and support gay marriage? Do you have to support gay marriage in order to treat a person with civility and respect? We are all humans. We were all put here by God. We are all subject to His laws, whether we agree with them or not.
And then there's the glaringly obvious; is this really the most important issue for our country right now? I can think of so many other things that are much more important to consider when deciding how to cast ones vote.
Alison Moore Smith is a 61-year-old entrepreneur who graduated from BYU in 1987. She has been (very happily) married to Samuel M. Smith for 40 years. They are parents of six incredible children and grandparents to two astounding grandsons. She is the author of The 7 Success Habits of Homeschoolers.
“It is a slippery slope we play on when we seek to redefine the laws of God.”
Good thing that marriage equality only seeks to alter civil law then, innit? God can leave his laws just as he likes. Just like, say, alcohol is forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, but not by the US government.
“Can you believe in God and support gay marriage?”
Yup. Pretty easily.
What’s at the heart of the issue is not whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. What’s at the heart of the issue is not whether or not you believe in God. What’s at the heart of the issue goes way down deep to the most basic assumptions that sit at the center of the argument on each side.
One camp holds very dear the notion that a marriage is a sacred covenant between God and two of his children that they will work together to create a mutually supportive relationship that embraces love and and commitment and sharing and a mutual commitment to keeping all of God’s commandments as they do so. That idea is at the heart of their understanding of marriage. Therefore, if you use their definition, a union between two people who base their relationship on the breaking of a commandment that they believe God has given his children cannot be defined as a marriage. It doesn’t fit that definition.
The other camp holds very dear the notion that marriage is a solemn (and in some cases, sacred) contract between two people that they will work together to create a mutually supportive relationship that embraces love and commitment and sharing and allow them all the rights and privileges and the obligations that their country’s laws give to married couples. Therefore, if you use their definition, a marriage between two gay or two lesbian people is a completely reasonable.
Both sides are completely reasonable based on the (often subconscious) assumptions that they have made about the intrinsic nature and definition of the word “marriage”. And, from their standpoint and their understanding of what marriage is, the other camp is unarguably unreasonable.
The reason behind the fear and name-calling and anger is the fact that you have two camps using the same term, “marriage” but meaning very different things. As long as the differences in definitions are ignored, each side will logically assume that the other’s position is either bigoted or depraved. That is the reasonable, logical assumption based on their respective definitions of marriage.
The root of the debate is not who should be allowed to marry. The root of the debate is the fact that we live in a society that recognizes both civil and religious marriage rites as equal in the sight of the law. In actuality, over the last 100 years or so the civil definition and the religious definitions of marriage have developed, in a large percentage of cases, into different things.
But as long as we fail to recognize that they no longer mean the same thing, as long we do not disentangle them and give them their own separate venues which more accurately define their different meanings to the individuals involved in the marriage contract, as long as we continue to lump them together in our civil society, the condemnation and frustration will continue unabated on both sides.
L-dG,
Not everything that is legal is moral.
When it comes right down to it, the problem here isn’t with definitions, legislation, political parties or presidential candidates. Its ALL about the people, even LDS people, mingling the philosophies of men with scripture. Or leaving scripture out entirely.
The people have turned from God, and turned from his laws. More and more want to embrace “the philosophies of men”, so they are fighting for laws and presidents who will GIVE them legal permission to do whatever they want.
Did you notice the headlines from the day after the election? I actually wrote them down in my journal. It’s very harrowing.
“Obama wins relection”
” Israel Faces Rocky Road AFter Obama ReElection”
“Washington STate Approves Gay Marriage”
“Election 2012: BReakthrough for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community”
“Main Approves Gay Marriage”
“Maryland Suports Same-Sex Marriage”
“Colorado and Washington Legalize Recreational Use of Marijuana”
THIS is what the people want. And in a system of government where the PEOPLE get to choose their representatives and their president– THIS is what they are voting for– sex and drugs.
The problem isn’t Obama, it isn’t politics, it isn’t party— it’s a sinful generation of people.
I guess I have a bit of an unpopular take on this.
I don’t think being against gay marriage makes you bigoted or means that you don’t think gay people are human. That’s just silly. It’s okay for intelligent people to disagree and not be evil people (that applies to politics in general, in my opinion, not just this issue).
On the other hand, having several family members and friends who are gay, I see that many of them DO want a marriage that includes God. One in particular that I know of (both RMs) had a celibate but committed relationship for several years in the hopes that they could have a legal marriage and that the church may eventually “come around” to gay sealings. I personally don’t think that will ever happen, but many gay members of the church do.
Eventually, they held a religious ceremony in another church and in a state where gay marriage is legal. They are both still believing, but ex-members of the church because of this decision. While I am not involved in their day-to-day lives, everything I see leads me to believe that they do have God as a part of their relationship.
I think we need different terminology.
Sorry for my delay in participating in the conversation.
MB: So if we disentangle and redefine to suit the religious and the civil, how do we end up in a different state than Sodom and Gommorah? Isn’t it sort of splitting hairs a bit to think that we can create a situation that is pleasing to God and man? Your comment is extremely cogent, but leaves me lacking in the spiritual responsibility department.
What is the responsibility of those who believe in Armageddon and see this perversion of marriage as a pivotal point in our nation’s allegiance to God? Certainly it is not to hate or hurt another child of God. The belief that America has a providential history, and a responsibility to live up to that, is entwined with charity for millions of Americans.
How can we be loyal to God and create a world that is opposite His designs? I don’t see that we can. I also don’t see that there is any way to convince the other side that we are not bigoted or evil.
I suppose that ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility. We do our best to live a life that reflects our belief in, and support of, God. Then we get to work and prepare for “come what may”.
Angie: Would different terminology be justification in a sense? Meaning, I’ll call it this so I can technically say that I didn’t actually vote/do something against God’s law?
I ask because I struggle with this in particular. Could I vote for Civil Unions? I can easily support a legal agreement sought by two people in the private sector. It is quite a leap for me to take it to the government/national level and redefine something so innately crucial to God’s Plan.
What would your terminology be?
And just to be uber clear here; I do not think that people who live a gay/lesbian lifestyle are evil.
I do not advocate any one particular solution to the challenge our nation faces nor do I think that it is wise for people to vote for things that they believe are morally wrong.
What I advocate is helping people to understand why it is that the two camps are so totally unable to comprehend or dialogue with each other. Until the two sides can understand that they are talking about two things that have fundamentally opposed presuppositions at their roots the mudslinging and fear will continue.
Right now the law makes no distinction between the two. So therefore, any legislation or religious opinion that applies to one must apply to the other in the minds of all concerned. And that is unacceptable to both camps.
Marriage law in the US was largely created in a highly religious society that eschewed homosexual relations and found divorce to be a great tragedy and failure. The majority of Americans at the time held those same values and therefore legislation about marriage, either civil or church
sanctioned could be treated equally by the law. People had the same assumptions about the expected behavior of the parties involved in both and the same assumptions about the legal ramifications of both.
Now, however, we find ourselves in a society that is strongly divided as to what are the acceptable parameters of marriage. Civil marriages no longer assume the involvement of God. Religious marriage assumptions in some cases do eschew homosexual behavior and divorce, in other cases eschew one but not the other, and in in some cases the parties involved are fine with both.
As long as the law holds equal jurisdiction over both forms of marriage (civil and church), then both forms face the possibility of being required by law to a) conform more to the standards of the other or b) have their form of marriage be restricted by legislation. So of course, facing that grave possibility, both sides frantically work to establish their assumptions as the ones that receive legal sanction and their fringes also seek to demonize the opposing view.
This will continue as long as there is no recognition that the two sides are generally (there are some exceptions) talking about two different sets of assumptions about marriage rights and responsibilities that are being treated by the law as though they are the same.
In response to your query: Such a situation obliges those who believe that their view is the right one to continue to fight so that the legal definition of marriage reflects their personal convictions.
But that same situation also will mandate that one side be ultimately declared “the winner”, leaving the other side open to broad legislation that could further undermine it. That is not going to fly with either camp.
Right now we’re locked into an inevitable path of a winner and a loser. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good place to be. And I think that a reasoned discussion of the huge difference in assumptions about what marriage entails will help advocates on both sides to reduce their fear-mongering and mudslinging and increase their willingness to listen to each other.
But I’m not holding my breath.
This is where I get frustrated. It seems there really is no solution.
I do believe I can stand for truth and righteousness without fighting for it. I have no interest in mudslinging or anything of the sort. I am willing to listen but I have yet to find anyone with differing viewpoints willing to talk in a real way. More to the point, what can little old me do anyway.
I have many friends and acquaintances that view things differently than I do but attempting to engage in a thoughtful conversation about much of what is going on in the world today is a joke. I might as well turn on the news and just listen to the talking points of either side and continue small talk in person. I am craving thoughtful discussion that might actually make a difference but am met with defensiveness and most times a complete lack of understanding and willingness to learn about the subject matter at hand.
It is interesting to me that people who don’t know my religious and political/social views are genuinely shocked when they “find out”. I haven’t been able to pinpoint why until a recent conversation where a good friend said, “You are so kind, open, and accepting, how could you possibly believe in all the hate and superiority prescribed by the dark side?” It was a conversation stopper as she really didn’t want to hear anything I had to say once she “knew”. How do we participate in conversations if we are doomed by association before we even begin.
Is there anyone out there willing to agree that things in our country are in a pretty bad state and the “solutions” thus far are equal to putting a miniature bandaid on a gushing artery, make that a few hundred gushing arteries?
I do believe there will be a time that will call for fighting. I am not sure what that will mean but I am not looking forward to it by any stretch of the imagination.
Amy, regarding terminology, I really don’t have an awesome word. The closest I’ve come is “civil union” or simply “gay marriage” but it doesn’t really work to say, “I’m getting unioned (or unionized) this weekend!” or “I got gay married in 2012.” I do think that there is a difference in traditional marriage and same-sex marriage. I don’t think gay sealings will ever be allowed, nor do I think they should be. On the other hand, my not spiritually condoning a relationship does not mean it’s not a real relationship and doesn’t deserve legal rights (without bartering out private legal agreements). That’s just my opinion and I know it’s not the popular one but I just can’t in good conscience tell people who I care about that their relationship is less valid than mine is just because I am heterosexual and they are not.
The way I look at it, if you have same-sex attraction and are LDS you are left with basically 4 choices:
1) Maintain lifetime celibacy.
2) Attempt to “fix” your homosexuality through therapy, heterosexual marriage, etc.
3) Leave the church and live a gay lifestyle.
4) Stay in the church and live a gay lifestyle. Granted, this will not be with any of the “benefits” of membership like holding a calling or attending the temple, but you can certainly attend and continue to learn and believe in most of it.
5) Dwell on what you are losing because of your homosexuality and kill yourself.
Lifetime celibacy: Ouch. Possible, yes. Sad, yes. There are many who do this. They never quite seem to fit in the church though, nor do they really fit in the gay community.
Fixing homosexuality: Arguably not even possible in most cases. This is one I feel pretty strongly about, having seen the irreparable damage that has been done when someone is gay but trying to “fix” it and in the meantime bring a spouse and children into the picture before finally realizing they are never going to fix it. All kinds of problems that come with this from betrayal to passing along STDs from your extramarital affairs to an innocent spouse. I know there are cases where this has seemingly “worked” for people. I think they are few and far between, at least in the long run.
Leave: This is sadly what is happening for most. They don’t feel they have a place in the church. And many of their family members end up leaving as well in support.
Stay and live the life: Haven’t really seen anyone do this long-term either. The church is just heterosexual and family oriented to feel comfortable going each week.
Suicide: It’s extremely sad to me that these conflicted feelings have led to so many suicides. Having experience suicide in my family several times (not due to homosexuality as far as I know, but for other reasons) I know that it’s not easy for anyone to ever get over that. Ever. And yet it’s happening so much, especially with young gay men in the church. Heartbreaking.
So anyway, those are just my opinions. I think the church needs to find a way to be much more tolerant of legal rights for gay members and help them to find a place in the church. They may not be able to be sealed, but if they have a legal union perhaps they could participate in the church in a similar fashion as part-member families.
Angie:
I hear you from a compassion standpoint but I can’t wrap my head around a church that professes to have Christ at its head and yet allows perversion of God’s plan. How do you see that working? How do you have standards to offer the youth or anything valid to say in the matter if the very thing you are saying is immoral or against God’s laws is sitting next to you in Sacrament Meeting or sleeping in the bunk next to you at girl’s or scout camp?
The problem I see is that while there are those who genuinely struggle with homosexuality, there are many that are bullied, or at least coerced, into the lifestyle due to lack of self esteem, parental guidance, social pressure in areas where it is prevalent, and so on. There are predators lurking around out there seeking to convince impressionable youth, young adults, and even seasoned folks of their homo or bi sexuality.
A little exposure here a little there and before you know it you were homosexual all along and just didn’t know it until someone was kind enough to point it out or even more powerful encourage and entice those feelings. It’s much the same as pornography in my eyes. Those addiction centers in the brain that are tied with arousal and sexual stimulation are extremely powerful and it matters not what gender a person is that is provoking those feelings. I have seen it personally and am privy to many heart wrenching details of lives taken over by this type of behavior.
If we don’t set the standard and uphold God’s sacred laws within His church then how are we standing for truth and righteousness? How are we offering a strong, safe, and true place for morals and values based upon God’s laws?
I see your side of things and fully acknowledge the difficulties and pain good people suffer as a result of this corruption of an imperfect body. There is definitely a problem, I just can’t see how the solution is to fully accept the behavior and lifestyle into the church. Stopping short of sealings seems a bit like mingling sacred things with the desires of man.
I think we just see homosexuality differently, and I will freely admit that my opinion is not the opinion of the church (I sometimes disagree with the church on other things too so that’s not too surprising :)). It comes from knowing people who are gay, both friends and family members, and seeing the repercussions when it is repressed. I don’t think it chosen, contagious, or necessarily a result of abuse, coercing, or bullying (none of the people I know experienced any of those things to my knowledge…well bullying yes but only after they were “out” as being gay).
One super sad case from just this past summer is a young man who killed himself after being told that he would not be able to serve a mission after confessing to his bishop that he had homosexual tendencies. He had never acted on anything but had known since his early teens that he preferred males to females. And yet young men who have engaged in quite serious sin, including sexual intercourse, are allowed to go if they have repented…and as long as their feelings are heterosexual and not homosexual.
I guess I just try to put myself in the shoes of these parents. What if that were my kid? Would I want them to feel that they have a place in the church or not? Would they have a place in my family still? Would I want them to feel like they were worth less because they of how they feel or that God doesn’t love them enough to bless them with a family, even a church family?
As long as the church’s stance is “it’s okay to be gay but not to act on it” I think I’m just going to have to agree to disagree.
I actually think, due to close associations, that there are both “types” of gay people. By both I mean those that choose the lifestyle due to conditioning and circumstance, as well as those that have the “tendency” or what have you. I am not particular about the definition, I just know that there are some for whom it is a struggle regardless of “exposure”. I am sympathetic to their plight and wish no ill will on anyone.
I have pondered the questions you posed above before, with the exception of church involvement, and find it easy to accept my children for whatever they are or choose. I have never heard of, or associated with, a gay person that wanted anything to do with the church. It complicates the issue further for me because I can’t see how you include something that perverts the ways of God, but I can easily see that God would want all of His children to feel loved, accepted, and included.
I see your point about church participation and acceptance. The someone is easy for me to include, it’s the something that I struggle with. Perhaps a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would work here 🙂 That was a joke just in case you can’t hear my smile!
The part I can’t get past is that God’s plan is perverted by homosexuality and it does do damage and bring harm. I also see from your points and experiences cited that damage and harm are certainly a part of the current “solution” for those involved.
How do you condemn the act and love the person committing it? It’s easy for me when considering things like, drugs alcohol, and so on. This is so much bigger than all of that for me.
Ugh, I just typed a whole long response and then lost it! That has never happened to me before, so maybe it’s a sign! 🙂 haha
At any rate, it’s too late for me tonight to type it again, so I will just throw this very small part of what I said out there. You asked:
“How do you condemn the act and love the person committing it?”
I guess the short answer for me (long answer is in cyberspace) is that maybe the answer is not to actively condemn the act. I am speaking specifically of the act of homosexuality. Pre/extramarital sex is a different story and of course is something that needs to be taught and reinforced, in my opinion.
This is why I’m in favor of legitimizing gay unions. If two people are married then you can condemn acts of extramarital sex of ANY form regardless of orientation, if that makes sense.
I guess my big issue is there is so much sexual deviancy in the church (premarital, extramarital, porn, etc.) that can be repented of, and yet even the THOUGHT that you might be gay will restrict you from all kinds of things (and run you out of the church, in every case I’ve seen) even if you aren’t acting on it. It’s hard to find a place if this is your orientation.
As to your comment about both types of gay people – I actually think there are way more than just 2 types. It’s a super complicated issue. There are people who know from the time they are very young. There are people who are happily married for years and then fall in love with a same-sex partner after a divorce or death of a spouse. There are those who may not be sure, but do question (and these are probably those who may be swayed as you have talked about, although ultimately I think it’s nearly impossible to convince a heterosexual that they are actually gay.)
One of my gay friends asked me once, “How would you feel if someone told you that you had to be sexually attracted to another woman, that it’s the only way? Would you try it just to find out? No! You would laugh them off the planet, right? Well, flip the situation around and that’s how I feel.”
Have any of you had a chance to check out the church’s new website? I’ve only seen a little but it looks really nice.
http://www.mormonsandgays.org
Last week, we had a transgender woman come to a Relief Society activity. She was very nervous about being accepted, and nearly spent the evening in the bathroom, but she was welcomed into the activity and if anyone thought she looked different, no one commented or gave her a wide berth.
Two things that stand out to me on the website (which I still plan to explore more):
Where the Church stands:
“The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters”
“As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”
Who said they were?