Polygamy is the perfect world for men. They get to have sex with many women (which is what most men want) and they have a whole community of people to do the housework and take care of the children.

I think one should be hesitant about Jesus’ lineage as they differ in Matthew from what they do in Luke. But like you infer, these people may have had an actual “role” in the real lineage, whatever it was. That the generations are arranged numerologically significant, I think hints us toward the interpretation that you espouse: That Jesus is a King of Humanity. Given Matthew’s Jewish halacha-focused audience, I don’t think it insignificant that the lineage is not strictly patriarchal (which was the only authentic Jewish lineage), and that the four women included are gentiles or unclean. Fits nicely in arguing against those of the day who rejected Jesus because he was considered a bastard child.

And of course, the nice message of Luke’s lineage is that Jesus is Priest of Humanity who broke all the literal, hierarchical and cultural barriers of Divine access — which dovetails nicely with Acts and Paul’s Grace-focused epistles, given that Luke is credited to have accompanied Paul in missions and written Acts.

I think the OT goes to great lengths to show that Jesus was born King of Humanity, not JUST King of the Jews - or even King of the Abrahamites - or even King of the Righteous Good - or King of the Chaste - etc.

Your interpretations of scriptures are always interesting and give me something to think about. I’m wondering what other differences may exist from the traditional interpretations in the “NLT” version of the bible. I wonder what your take is on the Jonathan and David story…

That’s just it, Stu. Those who support marriage equality, like myself, aren’t trying to impact the rights or beliefs of the LDS church or its members. The legal recognition of same-sex marriages does not require the LDS church to change its doctrine. It does not require the LDS church to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. It does not require the LDS church or its members to ecclesiastically accept same-sex marriages. It does not limit the LDS church or its members from expressing or teaching their belief that homosexuality, or even same-sex marriage, is morally wrong.

On the other hand, the LDS church, along with many of its members, is actively trying to detrimentally impact the rights of homosexuals, the vast majority of whom do not fall under that church’s ecclesiastical authority in any way. Does the LDS church have a legal right to exert its resources and influence in this way? Yes, though it must abide by the restrictions of the federal tax code in doing so, or face lawful consequences.

Whether or not this is a moral activity, undertaken with full respect for the moral agency which the LDS church teaches that all humans have, is quite a different question. When those outside the LDS church went to similar efforts to detrimentally impact the rights of LDS members to live according to the dictates of their religion, LDS members rightly called in persecution. Evidently they don’t apply the same standard of behavior to themselves, that they did to “gentiles.”

Therefore, in Leviticus we have anti-sodomy laws shoulder to shoulder with different versions of the ten commandments, dietary injunctions and Sabbaoth regulations. If most of this law was fulfilled in Jesus, at least for Gentile converts, then why did Paul (and the Didache writers) still affirm Jewish anti-sodomy teachings? Again, Paul was quite “unenlightened” on female issues and slavery, which we have considered it a cultural standard now free to deviate from. Was he more likely arguing against the negative products of Hellinization which included sexual standards — including the wide practice of fornication and pederasty — that were liberalized far greater than he considered healthy for a Christian community? Was Paul condemning homosexual relations in descriptive practice or the form in which it took in the culture of the day?

This is the argument that is gaining persuasion, even among Christians. If homosexuality is not condemned in practice, then it is its form which makes it an acceptable or unacceptable community holiness standard. Ergo, if gay or lesbian people are in committed, monogamous unions/marriages, then isn’t that ultimately the form that most closely identifies acceptable community sexual practice?

I’m not entirely persuaded that the time has come for the form to be changed of what is the Christian community holiness standard relating to marriage. So I appreciate the slow process this is, and must be, if and as change happens. But it seems quite clear to me that anti-sodomy teachings, in its state of being an abomination, reflects a holiness standard, a standard of community belonging, and not a state of salvific acceptableness/non-acceptableness before the Lord. In that way I think much of Christianity is wresting the Bible too greatly, and especially in their “righteous hatred” of GLBT persons, and in applying that religious perspective to American legal standards. However, I generally affirm the Christian holiness standard, if altered, need not to be done swiftly, summarily and without sympathy for the historical Christian standard. IOW, Christian denominations should be free to alter their community holiness standard to accommodate homosexual marriages if they wish or don’t wish, without other Christian denominations who feel differently using that as a standard by which to measure whether they are accurately Christian or not.

What groups on either side of an issue don’t spend large amounts of money to further their own BELIEFS to be imposed on others (free or otherwise)? Why condemn the lds church for doing what is in their own best interest?

I would gladly fight to protect the right of LDS leaders to teach their beliefs on the subject of homosexuality, no matter how I view those beliefs. When they spend millions of dollars in an effort to codify those beliefs into civil law, thereby impacting the rights of millions of free citizens who are not members of their faith, I will certainly raise my own voice to object.

Where, exactly, did I do any such thing, Stu? Are you paying any attention at all?

I didn’t use Millet to define “scripture”, I used it to define lds “doctrine”.

Which means, as I’ve already noted, that you completely avoided the original challenge to find any canonized source, wherein deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman. I have to conclude that either you don’t read questions carefully at all, or you are simply unwilling to honestly acknowledge that no such source exists.

The PS&Rs will cave to the gay mafia…

I keep hearing about this “gay mafia.” Where the heck is it? How do I join? You sure make them sound like a powerful bunch! Are they only limited to making LDS leaders “cave,” or do they control the major world governments and monetary systems while they’re at it?

I didn’t use Millet to define “scripture”, I used it to define lds “doctrine”. Don’t call yourself a believing member of the lds church if you are not going to accept its various sources of doctrine.

Don’t worry Nick. As you pointed out previously, “…if the LDS church changes its position on homosexuality, it will, as demonstrated by past behavior, radically change its representation of what the Proclamation is about–and LDS leaders will act as if the “new” interpretation was that way from the start.”

So you see, all of this arguing doesn’t matter. The PS&Rs will cave to the gay mafia that exists within the church and to pressure from without. A “revelation” will be given that God always intended for gays to be celestially married and then EVERYONE will enjoy the blessings of temple marriage and homosexual members of the church won’t have to feel guilty about having all the butt sex they want.

Oh! Then I can only suppose that your comments were completely irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality, since nobody has argued that homosexuality should be a “means” of procreation! I’m glad you’ve cleared that up, Stu.

You said: “I certainly challenge you to find any canonized source where deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman.”

Bob Millet in “What is our Doctrine?” (which is available on lds.org) gives the test for sources of doctrine:

Now it’s your turn to “miss the point entirely,” Stu. Where did I ask what the doctrine of the modern LDS church is? Nowhere. We’re all quite aware of what modern LDS church leaders have to say on the subject of homosexuality. I asked you to find any canonized source. Don’t try to weasel out with the broad LDS definition of “scripture.” In LDS understanding, not all of what falls under the term of “scripture” is canonized.

You said: “I certainly challenge you to find any canonized source where deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman.”

Bob Millet in “What is our Doctrine?” (which is available on lds.org) gives the test for sources of doctrine:

“In determining whether something is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ask, Is it found within the four standard works? Within official declarations or PROCLAMATIONS? Is it discussed hi general conference or other official gatherings by general Church leaders today? Is it found in the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today? If it meets at least one of these criteria, we can feel secure and appropriate about teaching it.” [Emphasis added.]

I have quoted the Family Proclamation and it is clear: “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly PROCLAIM that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” [Emphasis added.]

And don’t give me your el toro poo poo such as “this statement doesn’t EXCLUDE other types of marriage.” If other forms of marriage are ordained of God, the 15 PS&Rs of the corp. of the president had an opportunity to include them in this proclamation of lds doctrine.

I mentioned common-law marriages in #33, but on BCC I made the point that those who give reasons to oppose gay marriage generally ignore the heterosexual applications of those reasons. They use them against “others”, but they don’t use them against “themselves”.

The best example might be, “Children deserve to be raised by a father and a mother.” If you REALLY believe that enough to disallow gay couples to adopt or raise children on that ground, you also should take children away from single mothers and fathers - and do absolutely whatever it takes to make orphanages extinct. You should exempt single parents completely from adoption and foster care - and remove all children from unwed welfare mothers at birth - etc.

If ANY statement is used to justify a restriction on gay marriage or activity, to be a *valid* LEGAL reason, it MUST be enforced equally to ALL - or it is discrimination in practice. That’s my primary problem with the way this issue generally is addressed; it’s rank hypocrisy. I simply can’t support that.

Ultimately, of course, the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” chant relies on the presumption that marriage is only, or at least preeminently, for the purpose of procreation. If marriage has any other legitimate purposes, then the current inability of same-sex couples to procreate together must be dismissed as any sort of dispositive point. Of course, the mere fact that we allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry is proof that our society (including the LDS church) considers marriage to have legitimate purposes other than procreation.

How then can a diversion from that which is divinely appointed and ordained of God be acceptable to God?

Let’s see. At one point, LDS believed it was “divinely appointed” that they build a temple in Independence, Missouri, during the natural lifetime of those who were contemporaries with Joseph Smith. When that proved to be unworkable, the early Mormons diverted from that “divine appointment,” and deity expressed direct approval for the change of plans. It seems that deity “divinely appointed” a temple in Independence, and then “divinely appointed” that it didn’t have to be built by that generation, after all. It is a well-established doctrine of Mormonism (and even of LDS-ism, really) that deity holds men accountable according to their particular circumstances and abilities, rather than issuing absolutist edicts.

Likewise, at one point, The Book of Mormon indicates that monogamy was “divinely appointed.” Wisely, however, Jacob noted that deity could just as easily “divinely appoint” plural marriage at any time. As Joseph Smith wrote, when discussing this same subject, he explained that “whatever god commands is right,” even if god had said, under different circumstances, that it was wrong.

In any case, I certainly challenge you to find any canonized source where deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman. I’ll even give you a head start, by pointing out that deity’s evident approval of Adam and Eve’s nuptuals didn’t include any statement to exclude other, additional family relationships.

That is NOT precisely what I’m suggesting. What do you think the statement “the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed.” is saying? “The means” consist of one part male and one part female to create life. We are not talking about whether one part or the other or both function properly (infertility) only the “means”. These “means” are NOT the same. They are heterogeneous and according to mormonism, these means are “divinely appointed”.

Notice also that the Family Proclamation doesn’t say marriage between a man and a man is ordained of God.

How then can a diversion from that which is divinely appointed and ordained of God be acceptable to God?

No way, no how, nope. The Church won’t go near legalized polygamy with a 10-foot pole. Legal scholars, for quite some time now, have questioned the validity of the Supreme Court’s century-old polygamy precedents. In other words, if it were really interested in bringing back “the Principle,” the Church certainly could launch a broadside attack. It has not done so. Re-embracing polygamy would be a practical and theological nightmare for the Church.

Too often, we classify those who tend to disagree with us and see what they do as “mental gymnastics” - all the while practicing our own high bar routine in our own private gyms.

I repeat, I am NOT accusing Nick of mental gymnastics. Rather, I am asking others to avoid accusing him of that. I am asking everyone to recognize we all see things the way we see things - and there is no reason to classify that by using a derogatory term like “mental gymnastics.

Perhaps in the same way that infertility among heterosexuals “fits into” deity’s plan. If lack of procreative ability was determinative of a relationship’s validity, which is precisely what you’re suggesting, then it would be a “sin” for any infertile person, let alone any person who didn’t want to have children, to marry. I think deity’s “Plan” is far broader than you conceive it to be.

IF? I think you need to consult JS as one of your lds sources. Didn’t he claim to have knowledge of the location of the Garden of Eden?

Absolutely! How does the mere existence of the Garden of Eden prove the entire story is historically factual? While I certainly tend to favor Joseph Smith’s teachings over those of the men who have presided over the LDS church, it’s worth pointing out that various LDS presidents, including Spencer W. Kimball, specifically stated that the Genesis account was “figurative” as it pertained to “the man and the woman.” Kimball’s statement was incorporated into the opening words of the LDS endowment ceremony for many years.

Since he proclaimed himself a PS&R, shouldn’t we give heed?

I would suggest that “since he proclaimed himself a prophet, seer and revelator” is perhaps the very worst reason to “give heed” to anything Joseph Smith said. After all, many people through history have “proclaimed themselves” to be the voice of deity on earth. One would hope that you “give heed” out of your personal spiritual conviction that Joseph Smith was a prophet, rather than because “he proclaimed himself” as such.

Gay members who leave the church don’t pay tithing.

Neither do a substantial percentage of actively-attending LDS members. The last statistics I heard, perhaps five years ago, was that only about 50% of active LDS members declare themselves as full tithe payers.

I have a question for you: When did homosexuality cease being “an abomination” in the sight of God?

Since I am aware of the cultural conditions which prevailed at that Leviticus was written, as well as those of the time of Paul, I’m not as convinced as you seem to be that deity ever considered homosexuality, per se, to be “an abomination” in the sense that you seem to interpret that word. What is clear is that the author of Leviticus claimed that deity pronounced those men (not women, interestingly enough) who engaged in sexual relations with those of their own biological sex to be unfit for ritual service in the tabernacle (the real meaning of the word, “abomination,” as used in the Old Testament). It is also clear that the author of the epistles of Paul considered the practice of men having sexual relations with pagan male prostitutes (which featured in local religions not devoted to Yahweh) was improper. I am also well aware that never, in all of recorded scripture, was Jesus quoted as teaching that deity condemned homosexual relations as such.

Since there is no objective evidence that deity condemned homosexuality per se, I am unable to answer your question as to when deity “stopped” doing so. Your question is akin to me asking you, “When did you stop beating your wife?”

“I believe the account of Eden is mostly figurative and might refer more to the War in Heaven than to events on this earth; I believe in evolution as the mode of creation for our physical bodies (but not for “mankind” as a distinct species); I believe that there were two individuals (Adam and Eve) who were literally the first “humans” - made a separate species by divine intervention; I absolutely love the Garden account; I love even more Joseph’s repositioning of the Garden narrative to his own life - in the Missouri revelation (which I can accept as just as likely as any other location, since nobody knows where it actually was IF it actually existed) and even more so in the endowment; I love that the Garden of Eden now is less than two hours from my house (in **two** locations: Columbus, OH and Louisville, KY) - and that I can visit Eden on a regular basis. It’s one of my favorite teachings of Mormonism.”

If your last question is directed at me, I never made that claim. Neither does the pamphlet. Neither have the Brethren. The change has been a recognition that homosexuality is not always a choice that can be discarded through effort - that it is NOT “unnnatural” - that homosexuality may be seen as a natural inclination just like MANY other natural inclinations that are “abominable” but “common to man”. That might not be far enough for many gay and lesbian members, but it is a very profound shift in one critical way. It finally views people who engage in their own “abominations” in the same light as you and I are viewed - as individuals who are affected by the Fall in varying ways and who, as a result of the Atonement, have a chance to be exalted **even if they never fully overcome their own personal “abominations” in this life.

If you and I were held to the same standard as homosexuals have had applied to them over the years, neither you nor I would have ANY chance at exaltation, since both of us have inherited, natural weaknesses that will plague us until the day we die. Personally, I think that’s a much better, more accurate description than the former perspective - based on how I view the Atonement.

“New understanding” or “revelation” is just a smokescreen for “We the PS&Rs of the lds church can change anything at anytime to suit any purpose we feel is necessary to keep the corp. of the president afloat.”

When you can’t defend a position any longer, change your position and call it “new understanding” or “revelation” and the Kool-aid drinkers will fall in line.

“You can believe us, because when we have spoken the thinking has been done.”

As far as I can tell, the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” has never been rescinded. Once again I ask: How does homosexuality fit into God’s Plan?

Nick also said: “If the Garden of Eden story is historically true (and solid LDS sources confirm that it is at least partially figurative)…”

IF? I think you need to consult JS as one of your lds sources. Didn’t he claim to have knowledge of the location of the Garden of Eden? Since he proclaimed himself a PS&R, shouldn’t we give heed?

Ray said: “Why does everything have to have an ulterior motive?”

Gay members who leave the church don’t pay tithing.

I have a question for you: When did homosexuality cease being “an abomination” in the sight of God?

You are, Nick - you and straight women, that is. We straight guys simply try and fail to live up to the standard you set.

Your question suggests there’s some sort of dichotomy, where I don’t believe there is one. If the Garden of Eden story is historically true (and solid LDS sources confirm that it is at least partially figurative), it makes complete sense for deity to begin with a fertile heterosexual couple, since the goal was to populate the earth. Such a beginning point, however, doesn’t rule out the idea that deity intended earth’s growing population to become diverse in a variety of ways. Some people think they’re clever, quipping “god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” It would be just as logical, however, to say that persons with dark skin color shouldn’t exist, because deity made Adam and Eve white (a debatable proposition, of course, but one that seems to be largely assumed in Western culture). The biological characteristics of Adam and Eve are in no way a final statement on what deity intended the entire human race to reflect. If it was, we’d all look and act identical.

When you read the Family Proclamation, you have to read it as a complete message.

Nobody seriously questions that the Proclamation was intended specifically to address the issue of homosexuality (among other issues). My point is simply that if the LDS church changes its position on homosexuality, it will, as demonstrated by past behavior, radically change its representation of what the Proclamation is about–and LDS leaders will act as if the “new” interpretation was that way from the start.

It’s the end of the church as we knew it.

Wow…and I thought we gay men were the experts on drama.

Why does everything have to have an ulterior motive? Why can’t new statements simply reflect new understanding? Do you really think the Brethren don’t *really* believe what’s in the pamphlet - that it was *just* an attempt at political appeasement?

Also, people said the exact same thing when polygamy ended and when the priesthood ban ended. For some, they were right; it really was the end of the Church as THEY knew it. For others, it wasn’t. People see things individually and vary radically in what they see. It’s not much more complicated than that, imo.

Maybe, but let’s suppose that God put two men in the Garden of Eden instead of Adam and Eve and commanded them to “multiply and replenish the earth”. How would that work exactly?

When you read the Family Proclamation, you have to read it as a complete message. In other words, each paragraph is a piece of the equation. Gender in the pre-existence, marriage ordained of God, Father, Mother, children, destiny, etc. inform the reader that homosexuality has no place in God’s plan for eternal families.

With the release of “God Loveth His Children”, the PS&Rs want to appease the gays in and out of the church, but the nose of the camel is never going to be enough. The next demand will be the head and neck, eventually the front legs, and then the whole herd. It’s the end of the church as we knew it.

Gender (mind you, the Proclamation incorrectly uses “gender” when it really means “biological sex”) and sexual orientation are separate and distinct issues. Being a gay man, for example, has nothing at all to do with not wanting to be male. In fact, the vast majority of gay men I’ve encountered look upon effeminate behavior with attitudes varying between amusement and outright contempt. Yes, even gay men can be intolerant about some things–grin!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “If homosexuality is not a choice, then how can the PS&Rs who run the church deny gays the same privileges and blessing afforded to heterosexuals who also don’t choose their orientation?” Good luck with that.

If the time ever comes that the LDS church accepts homosexual relationships, they will very likely begin to teach that the Proclamation “always” meant something quite different than it is now understood. LDS leaders did the same thing, with the help of apostle Charles Penrose, with regard to D&C 132 after the Manifesto was issued. Despite the fact that the Proclamation was largely issued as a response to the same-sex marriage debate, the new interpretation will claim that the Proclamation never addressed matters of sexual orientation at all.

Ray’s comments about the church’s pamphlet “God Loveth His Children” and the pamphlet itself address the notion of homosexuality as a choice.

The PS&Rs who run the church seem to have taken a step back from “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”. In it they “declare” that “the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan”. I take that to mean that it takes one part male and one part female to create mortal life on earth. I’m not sure how butt sex between two men accomplishes the “multiply and replenish the earth” mandate from God. However, DH Oaks has put it out there that homosexual urges, tendencies, desires, etc. are not present in a person by choice.

You seem to empathize with those who “can’t keep up the pretense that they’re not gay when HF sent them into the world that way.” According to the Family Proclamation HF DIDN’T send anybody into the world THAT way. Again from the Family Proclamation: “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Also, “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family (Infer: Father, Mother, children based on other parts of the proclamation.) is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children” How is it that a man can fulfill the measure of his creation and his eternal destiny if he is going around having butt sex with other men?

A rude awakening is coming for the ultra-conservative TBMs in the church when the PS&Rs knuckle under to the gay mafia (in and out of the church) and allow gay, celestial marriage in the lds temples. After all, men are that they might have joy. The PS&Rs will find a way to spin the Family Proclamation to include gays in the the “Plan of Happiness”.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “If homosexuality is not a choice, then how can the PS&Rs who run the church deny gays the same privileges and blessing afforded to heterosexuals who also don’t choose their orientation?” Good luck with that.

Now as far as this relates to polygamy, if the state feels compelled (again democratically) to promote monogamy as the ideal, so be it. I do think that the equal protection clause should force states to have a “live-and-let-live” attitude with polygamists - which is what they want anyway. The only difference between a polygamist, a serial monogomist, or an adulterer is the ideal of commitment. We live and let live with mongomists who don’t monog, so we whould be okay with polygamists since they are higher on the moral totem pole in my opinion.

1) if for some reason polygamy were to be legal in the US, the church would be in a VERY awkward position
2) i do not have a problem with consenting adults willing entering into such polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, etc relationships, BUT religious persuasion, compulsion, etc. should not be the impetus
3) even though i would allow for such marriages to take place, polygamous marriage systems are not practical (as several posters have already mentioned) and serve no practical purpose (unless they are polyandrous in which case they could be a form of population control)

by the way, just a question for anyone out there; if polygamy were legalized, would the lds church bring back polygamy? and if they did why would they? or what reasons would they give for doing so? (i am pretty sure the lds church would not, but thats my 2 cents)

The question then becomes what next?

Because

In terms of being born gay…there are studies using monozygotic twins where one will be gay and the other straight whilst they have exactly the same genetics.

And interesting to this conversation…so is polygamy.

alice, they have. Read the latest pamphlet “God Loveth His Children”. It states unequivocally exactly what you just said - and so have the latest statements by Elder Jensen and Elder Oaks. I know there are aspects of the pamphlet that homosexuals still find simplistic and offensive, but it teaches quite clearly that “homosexuality is not a wanton choice made by deviant individuals”.

…which is why straight Mormon men and women find themselves married to people who, eventually, can’t keep up the pretense that they’re not gay when HF sent them into the world that way. When that happens the confusion, frustration and tragedy is compounded by every unknowing spouse and all the children involved. And what might have remained a personal challenge before marriage and children becomes gossip for entire wards.

It’s time for the GAs to recognize that homosexuality is not a wanton choice made by deviant individuals. I suspect HF is doing his best to reveal it to them and using the turmoil of entire country as His voice to demonstrate that there can be no serenity while we ignore and persecute some of His children. You know, like he did in 1978.

SALT LAKE CITY 16 May 2008 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same-sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the Church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate.

Married adults are less likely than other adults to be in fair or poor health, and are less likely to suffer from health conditions such as headaches and serious psychological distress.

Married adults are less likely be limited in various activities, including work and other activities of daily living.

Married adults are less likely to smoke, drink heavily or be physically inactive. However, married men are more likely to be overweight or obese than other men.

Adults who live in cohabiting relationships are more likely to have health problems than married adults and more closely resemble divorced and separated adults.”http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04facts/marriedadults.htm

If these benefits are likely ones of stability, then you would think that participants of gay marriage will see them as well (without the one where married men are more likely to be overweight, perhaps), but time will tell.

Whether we have gay marriage or domestic partnerships in my states, it won’t change the way I raise my children. I will always love them no matter what. I will encourage them to pursue their interests with recognition inside that I bias that encouragement with the assumption that they are heterosexual rather than the assumption that they should have a gender neutral upbringing. I will encourage higher level education for children of both genders and careers of their choosing, but I will also teach them that the best careers are the ones that allow an individual to have ample time to be with their families.

As to polygamy, it was put very well by Shawn in saying, “I certainly am not bucking for the opportunity to bring another (set of problems)wife into my happy family.” Regarding the afterlife polygamy that the LDS church continues to teach, my wife has advised me that if she should die, I should only marry any other woman for time and not be sealed for eternity. There’s the final word for me.

As with anything in psychology it is most likely a mixture of nature and nurture. Your behaviour can change your physiology and your physiology can change your behaviour. There has been great scientific evidence showing the homosexuals men have physiological differences the best evidence I have found is that the INAH3 in the anterior hypothalamus is the same in gay men, in size and density, as it is in women. It is linked with sexual behaviour in primates.

It could infact be a physiological “defect” but I do not see it as such. We know that homosexuality is well documented in 500 other species and prevlaent in 1500 more. It is very common in species of animals….

And interesting to this conersation…so is polygamy.

I think that if we were to make homosexual marriage law, and I am in favour of this, then I also think we should allow polygamy. For goodness sakes, my neighbour has fathered children with about 3 women he has not married….this is legal but yet committing to them and having them commit to him is??

Completely illogical….I think the biological and sociological impact on society should be looked at scientifically without prejudice from convention, societal acceptance, or tradition.

And as long as there is no coercion or malfeasance then I would see polygamy and homosexual marriage being acceptable whilst incest and paedophilia would not be.

I don’t know for myself whether some people are born gay or have early infant/childhood influences that shape their sexual orientation, although I would say that being born gay is a possibility. I would say, without statistics to back me up, that if children are born with a preset sexual orientation, that the most common sexual orientation would be heterosexual, the second most common sexual orientation would be bisexual, and the third most common sexual orientation would be homosexual.

The California courts descision for homosexual marriage recognition doesn’t do anything for bisexual individuals to allow them to express their sexuality in the confines of legally recognized relationships. Bisexual individuals are expected to choose one aspect of their sexual orientation to live in a legal relationship and lead the other aspect of their orientation “on the side”. Alternatively, they are expected to “shun” the other aspect of their orientation and live as one or the other. For judges who make accommodations to include homosexual unions in the context of legally recognized marriage, exclusion of the same accommodations to individuals of bisexual orientation seems discriminatory by their own standard.

A friend of mine was invited to join a group of individuals who practiced “polyfidelity”. The individuals in this group participated in intimate relationships with any member of the group, but ONLY with members of that group. I took it to mean that invitees were expected to live, if possible, in the same community with the other members, although not in the same household. I didn’t get the impression that there was any push for legal recognition of this relationship, but who knows who will seek recognition in the future in the brave new world.

Well, it would seem from the citation below that lesbian mothers have raised the bar for their sons:

“http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families.

o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals.”

I agree, but does that necessarily equate to required consent to the Court’s ruling? Put another way, can I support restrictions on behavior while still refraining from judging the individual who participates in that forbidden behavior?

That’s a different issue. Polygamy certainly may raise issues amongst and between the wives, but that certainly doesn’t equate to sexism. I think, as you concluded, every martial relationship — be it monogamous or polygamous — differs in the power balance between the respective partners.

Ray - My thoughts exactly. Render unto Ceasar. Personally, when my wife and I were sealed in the temple, I was not thinking “Gee, now I have the civil rights of marriage…” - rather, that’s what I was thinking when we got the license, however.

I know the following is not an easy position to understand coming from a generally conservative Mormon, but, at the very core, I believe in the **legal** standard of treating all people equally within the law. Iow, ANYONE who violates a core standard should be punished equally. In that light, I can’t support the violation of the sanctity of marriage by heterosexuals and not support the same violation of the sanctity of marriage by homosexuals. Both are fornication or adultery; both are condemned in scripture; both are manifestations of the natural man; both are violations of the Law of Chastity. Regulate and/or punish both or neither; don’t regulate and/or punish just one.

I am concerned DEEPLY about the weakening and breakdown of traditional marriage, and I support measures that will strengthen traditional marriage, but I don’t think banning gay marriages and (for example) not banning common law heterosexual marriages strengthens traditional marriage. I believe such an action actually weakens marriage in a much more fundamental way, since it explicitly legitimizes common law, heterosexual marriage - a form of fornication condemned in our canon just as vehemently as homosexual activity. However, the heterosexual, religious community will NEVER support equal treatment of ALL fornicators and adulterers. That barn door is open and will never close in this country. This decision came about because of the actions of the heterosexual community, not the homosexual community.

If you want to strengthen marriage, imho, have the state issue civil union licenses to whomever it decides should have basic *social* benefits - and allow religions and churches to define “marriage” and hold it to a higher standard than the government does. Mormon marriage and Catholic marriage and other denominations’ marriages would mean something then - unlike now, when marriage means absolutely no more than the price of the certificate that shows the arrangement - and is just as easily dissolved. Some religions would accept polygamy and not homosexual activity; some will accept both; most will accept neither. Some churches and religions will add requirements for marriage that will make it truly special and strong. Either way, “marriage” will become a religious institution, making it a mark of dedication and effort and commitment - not just an arrangement to qualify for some financial benefits that can be arranged and destroyed on a whim.