Sic et Non
FollowPatheos Mormon on:
White shirts and (bow) ties
Thoughtful ruminations on what issues faithful Latter-day Saint leaders and members face, to the extent marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual unions:
Posted from St. George, Utah
“The point is also clearly made that those who enter into same-sex marriages “should not be treated disrespectfully.”So something that was previously illegal is suddenly legal, and a priesthood leader is faced with an issue: What happens if your relief society president or young men’s president starts cultivating marijuana and selling it?
The answer? Nothing. (I know this from personal knowledge of individuals in this situation.) The individuals are doing nothing illegal; they are upholding the “laws of the land.” They can be engaging in behavior that would have previously labeled them as drug dealers, and still be temple worthy.”
Those instructions makes it clear that those who enter into same-sex marriages are still allowed at Church. And it is beyond question that they are not breaking the law of the land. Perhaps, as with the marijuana growers, they can still hold callings. (Even callings teaching youth? Who knows?) If they previously had a temple recommend, can they still retain that temple recommend?”
Interesting questions. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling the Church will be just fine.
The correct answer is found in the Church’s statement, recently discussed.
A change in the law doesn’t change moral principles. People in “same sex marriages” are persistently breaking the law of chastity. They cannot be members in good standing, and arguably shouldn’t be members at all.
And yes, the Church will be just fine.
I’m picking Oregon as the likely locale for the next attempt to punish the Church through the courts.
You must have quite an ability kiwi57, to peer into the bedrooms of gay and lesbian couples and determine they are persistently breaking the law of chastity, which includes masturbation and having sexually inappropriate thoughts. Perhaps you could use your same powers of observation in telling us why it Is that Utah is such a “pornography desert”?
Come on, Lucy McGee. I’ll ignore your irrelevant insult to my adopted state, but, seriously, do you really believe that homosexual couples commonly seek marriage with the intention of abstaining from sexual relations after attaining it?
And do you really believe that youthful hormonally charged LDS Church members abstain from viewing pornography or having sexually inappropriate thoughts, or anyone else for that matter?
We’ve lived next to a lesbian couple since 1998. I can absolutely guarantee that my time isn’t spent speculating on their sex life, or lack thereof. It just doesn’t matter one whit to me either way, just as I’m pretty sure they don’t speculate about mine or care.
LM: “And do you really believe that youthful hormonally charged LDS Church members abstain from viewing pornography or having sexually inappropriate thoughts, or anyone else for that matter?”
As a former LDS bishop over a singles congregation who spent most of his episcopal time in interviews and personal counseling, I daresay I know very nearly as much about this topic as you do, LM.
Pornography is a problem in too many cases, of course, and the New Testament warns against even inappropriate thoughts. But that’s not the topic here. The topic is sexual congress. It would be a rare married couple that had clawed and fought to be wed . . . in order to live celibate lives together.
LM: “We’ve lived next to a lesbian couple since 1998. I can absolutely guarantee that my time isn’t spent speculating on their sex life, or lack thereof. It just doesn’t matter one whit to me either way, just as I’m pretty sure they don’t speculate about mine or care.”
That’s perfectly fine. It’s none of your business, and your obsessing about their sex lives would be (to put it mildly) very strange.
But The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does have rules about sexual behavior, and it cares about how its members act with respect to them. You or may not approve of that, but this too is, with all due respect, none of your business. Admission to the temples, exercise of priesthood functions, appointment to Church leadership and teaching positions — these all require compliance with various rules, including those regulating sexual behavior.
We know celibacy is possible, in some instances not uncommon, and has a long history within certain religions. It seems perfectly reasonable for married same sex couples to abide by such laws within their religious practices if they take their religion seriously, just as heterosexual couples abide by the Law of Chastity if they take their religion seriously.
My main point here, in response to kiwi and his belief that people in same sex marriages are persistently breaking the law of chastity, is can never know such a thing for certain, (just as he could never know if people are violating these laws) and it would NEVER apply to EVERYONE. There could well be cases where same sex couples have both a love for the LDS Church (or any other), for each other and who are willing to live celibate lives. And such people, it seems to me, should have the same opportunity.
“My main point here, in response to kiwi and his belief that people in same sex marriages are persistently breaking the law of chastity, is can never know such a thing for certain, (just as he could never know if people are violating these laws) and it would NEVER apply to EVERYONE. There could well be cases where same sex couples have both a love for the LDS Church (or any other), for each other and who are willing to live celibate lives. And such people, it seems to me, should have the same opportunity.”
FYI: The primary meaning of “celibate” is “unmarried.” It is only secondarily that it means “abstaining from sexual relations,” and that meaning has come to prominence only recently.
Your opinion about what the Church “should” do is noted. But if Latter-day Saints in good standing want to live celibate lives (which they are entitled to do) then they can do so by remaining unmarried.
“You must have quite an ability kiwi57, to peer into the bedrooms of gay and lesbian couples and determine they are persistently breaking the law of chastity, which includes masturbation and having sexually inappropriate thoughts.”
It also includes performing actual sexual acts outside the bonds of proper (i.e. heterosexual) marriage.
For which their “same sex marriage” constitutes prima facie evidence.
I realise that as a completely superior “bright” type, you utterly despise any and all moral principles based upon religious beliefs. But under something called “The separation of church and state” (something you guys try to conjure by any time a believer has the temerity to vote according to her conscience) the mere fact that a civil law has changed is not at all binding upon religious institutions. We are — as your fellow SSM advocates have been loudly insisting at least up until about 1.5 seconds ago — entirely free to ignore “same sex marriages,” remember? They don’t impinge upon our religious freedom in the slightest, right?
So if homosexual acts were contrary to the Law of Chastity last month, they are still contrary to the Law of Chastity.
For the rest of your post, I suggest you try frying up that red herring of yours.
It’s no good for anything else.
You still haven’t told us how it is you actually know what goes on in the bedrooms of same sex married couples. Perhaps, with your gift, you should become the morality police for the Brethren, playing informant when anyone within the Church happens to break the Law of Chastity.
Can you, while thinking of the most deviant sexual perversions occurring across the landscape of same sex couples, imagine that there are cases where no sex takes place? What about them? You blanket deny civil rights for things you can’t know, but choose to believe.
Sorry, I’ll take my red herring pickled, not fried.
“You still haven’t told us how it is you actually know what goes on in the bedrooms of same sex married couples.”
That’s because I didn’t actually claim to “actually know” any such thing.
I suggest you look up “prima facie evidence.”
Mr Lucy: “You blanket deny civil rights for things you can’t know, but choose to believe.”
I have no idea what you are havering about. Care to rewrite that in English?
By your sentence, ” People in “same sex marriages” are persistently breaking the law of chastity.” you claim to know something you cannot know (their sex life). Yet you choose to believe that these people are “persistently breaking the law of chastity” anyway. And by such belief, you are willing to deny EVERY same sex couple’s right of marriage. That’s a blanket denial based on what you think you know. Are you omniscient?
“By your sentence, ‘People in “same sex marriages” are persistently breaking the law of chastity.’ you claim to know something you cannot know (their sex life).”
If I wanted to claim to know something, I would do so.
You merely choose to infer such a claim, and then put those words into my mouth.
I don’t claim to know anything about their sex life. The fact that they’ve chosen to enter into what they are pleased to call “same sex marriage” is, however, prima facie evidence that they have a sex life together.
Unlike you, I don’t spend any time at all speculating about what form that might take. But they have chosen to publicly offer prima facie evidence that it exists.
I merely take them at their word.
Which I am entitled to do without you projecting your own nasty imaginings upon me.
“And by such belief, you are willing to deny EVERY same sex couple’s right of marriage.”
My position on “same sex marriage” has precisely nothing to do with what I think, or what you think I think, about the sex lives of those in such relationships.
I mentioned that because I was talking about their standing as members of the Church, which is a different matter entirely.
Evidently you are so enraged about this topic that you can’t follow a connected argument upon another subject, if SSM somehow manages to find its way onto the same page.
If you can’t make the effort to actually read my posts for comprehension, then kindly refrain from posting any more drivel in my direction.
In order to get a temple recommend, you must have an interview with the bishop who asks, among other things, if you are living the law of chastity. That is how that is known. I think that a good bishop would want to know if you are living with someone that you are sexually attracted to and who you would be tempted to have sex with all the time. And I don’t know why a same sex couple would want to live together celebately. But, I admit I’d never considered it. so thanks for that interesting thought.
As a follow-up, Mr Lucy: It seems likely that if someone who values her membership in the Church of Jesus Christ enough to care about her standing therein, nevertheless goes to the trouble of entering into a “same sex marriage,” then she probably is fairly motivated thereto. Chances are that she believes that no other arrangement will serve.
Like just being friends or roomies, for instance.
This is how “prima facie evidence” works.
By contrast, there is no prima facie evidence — absolutely none — that I have been “thinking of the most deviant sexual perversions occurring across the landscape of same sex couples.”
That spiteful accusation flows from no evidence at all, but represents merely the exercise of your own (heavily flawed) clairvoyant gifts.
So I suggest you pull the plank out of your own eye before going after the speck in mine.
Isn’t non-consummation of a marriage grounds for annulment?
This is the second article I’ve read where the church comes out with a clear cut statement and yet the writer tries to find as much grey area as he can to make it seem like just maybe the church is kinda okay with gay relationships now. The author takes the sentence saying that gays should not be treated disrespectfully to mean that maybe people violating the law of chastity are in good standing. I just don’t get it.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.