There is much more to the reasons of why homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the church and its members. Everything that is done in the church is done for families. The belief in eternal families and procreation. The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth which has never been rescinded. That cannot be done in the unit of a same-sex couple. They are capable of raising children, but they cannot have children together. And no I am not saying that the church endorses same-sex couples to adopt children. So therefore even if you do not believe in God’s sanctions, understanding the church’s doctrine on families and procreation is important. Secondly, it is the understanding that children need both a mother and a father and both needs of the children are fulfilled by having both a mother and father. If you understand the church’s position on families it may be easier to understand their position. Which also answers why the church would put a lot of emphasis on Prop 8 even in meetings. It is considered an attack on the plan and an attack on families. Children have the right to be raised by mother and father. Which is why the church stated that they have no problem with same-sex couples having “unions” and rights, but not to define it as marriage which is limited to man and woman under God- whether you believe that or not. That is the position of the church. Furthermore the separation of Church and State is commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted. The separation of Church and State is so that the State does not control the church. The founding fathers came from nations where government was always mixing in and telling the church’s what they could or could not do and also claiming one church as THEE church. It does not mean that religion has no place in government or that religious people have no place voting on measures that they feel are immoral or wrong because of their religious standing. A church has every right to discuss political and state matters in its congregation. The state however, has no right to tell a religion what it can and cannot do. And by your own words you feel that any group should have the right to include or not include who they wish. As for the church caring about same-sex marriages outside of its religion is also the concern for religious freedoms being in jeopardy. If SSM became legal than any religion who did not teach that doctrine and did not include that in it, could be in violation of someone’s “legal” rights and therefore allowing the state to step in and FORCE a religion to change its doctrine.

The church will never change its doctrine on this either. The arguments about blacks and the priesthood don’t work in this debate. The priesthood as given in the Old Testament was only originally given to the tribe of Levi and was “denied” to everyone else. God being the one who chooses who and when a people are given this power decided the same for blacks as he did for the other tribes of Israel.

And whoever said that the church backed off about the Nephites being Native Americans. Where would you be getting that from? Because science says that their DNA isn’t Jewish?? If that is the case that would be because they aren’t from the tribe of Judah, but that of Manasseh.

My question is: WHY is gay sexual activity sinful/wrong/inappropriate? I know that the general LDS answer is that “only marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned of God.” But, as someone who does not believe that statement and who is not threatened in any way by gays OR their sexual behaviors, it only seems to be an outright aversion and even disgust of gays and their “lifestyle”. Personally, I feel that private institutions, Such as the LDS church and others, should be allowed to include and dis-include whom they so choose (and I especially feel for those who are gay and in the church but don’t know how to deal with all that goes along with that). But what bothers me is that the Church put a lot of emphasis on Prop 8 in Church meetings (the last time I attended it was talked about from the pulpit in each of my three classes – I live in CA) when not only is there is a separation of Church and State in our country but I’ve also read that the Church claims to be politically neutral. Why does the church feel that it is OK to deny someone the right to marry for LOVE, OUTSIDE of the church? No temple marriages for gays? Fine. But this is a civil union so these people can have the same rights as other married couples. Isn’t this similar to when interracial marriage was illegal? Yes, my hope is that gays will not be 2nd class citizens anywhere, but I know that that is wishful thinking for now. Basically what I feel is that most churches SAY that it’s about the definition of marriage, but really it is because they don’t like the gay lifestyle and “agenda” – whatever that would be.

I don’t think you describe romantic love accurately. If there were no sexual feeling it would be platonic love and the affection expressed would be no different than you would show any of your friends and family. Romantic love (worshipful admiration) is intended to lead to sex, which is the highest form of affection and worship because that person is God to you.

This question should answer your question: If it’s so innocent, is it wrong or immoral for a married person to romantically love someone other than his/her spouse as long as they don’t engage in sex?

Again, the Church’s current position is that homosexuality is biologically natural for many people – but that such activity is wrong regardless, just as many other things are natural but wrong. Other arguments might have more current traction, but “it’s unnatural” just doesn’t fit the Church’s own statements now.

There is a very good discussion about this generally in the thread on the CA Supreme Court decision, and the actual Church statement is linked there in one of Nick’s comments. I would suggest reading that thread to get a good overview.

One of the greatest misconceptions is that the LDS Church is politically neutral. It’s NOT! It’s PARTISAN neutral. To say that we are politically neutral is extremely misleading, and yet we only have ourselves to blame for it because I hear Mormons saying all the time that the Church is politically neutral. There is a subtle, yet huge, difference between political and partisan neutrality. So that is how the Church is able to get so involved in Prop 8 without technically violating it’s own rules of being “neutral.”

You can find more on LDS Newsroom.

I just don’t get it.

But that is just my opinion on why the church is involved.

I think that gays should be allowed to be married. What is the harm?

My questions go beyond most of what is said here, albeit very interesting for me to see how Mormons really view gays.

My question is: WHY is gay sexual activity sinful/wrong/inappropriate? I know that the general LDS answer is that “only marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned of God.” But, as someone who does not believe that statement and who is not threatened in any way by gays OR their sexual behaviors, it only seems to be an outright aversion and even disgust of gays and their “lifestyle”. Personally, I feel that private institutions, Such as the LDS church and others, should be allowed to include and dis-include whom they so choose (and I especially feel for those who are gay and in the church but don’t know how to deal with all that goes along with that). But what bothers me is that the Church put a lot of emphasis on Prop 8 in Church meetings (the last time I attended it was talked about from the pulpit in each of my three classes – I live in CA) when not only is there is a separation of Church and State in our country but I’ve also read that the Church claims to be politically neutral. Why does the church feel that it is OK to deny someone the right to marry for LOVE, OUTSIDE of the church? No temple marriages for gays? Fine. But this is a civil union so these people can have the same rights as other married couples. Isn’t this similar to when interracial marriage was illegal? Yes, my hope is that gays will not be 2nd class citizens anywhere, but I know that that is wishful thinking for now. Basically what I feel is that most churches SAY that it’s about the definition of marriage, but really it is because they don’t like the gay lifestyle and “agenda” – whatever that would be.

The problem is that as you hint, the LDS definition of gender is confused. I mean, people already think that gender = biological sex, and so from there it’s easy enough for people to think that gender = sex = orientation

As you’ve suggested, I suspect we will see the LDS church go through a period where married, monogamously-intimate same-sex couples can be in full fellowship, but are not allowed to be sealed to one another “until the lord sees fit to reveal further.”.

so do you think that the law of chastity as it is currently observed needs to be more strictly monitored. For example, you say, “such things aren’t 100% sexless,” yet any heterosexual couple can do all of those things without anyone batting an eye. You say, “it may not even be 100% chaste,” yet for heterosexual couples, no problem. There are just as many chances there too, but no one cares. Even on a case-by-case basis. So, do you think that all couples should be barred from hand-holding/dating/chaste-kissing just to be on the “safe side” because you can’t divorce romantic from sex? Or do you actually think that all the heterosexual couples doing these activities have full intention of marrying?

#18 Ray—how does one interpret the “same law”? Does it mean that homosexuals should be able to cohabit with members of the same sex, or opposite sex? Because I know that BYU has very stringent views on nonfamily opposite-sex people cohabiting. I also know that, as a missionary, we were not allowed to baptize opposite-gender cohabitants, even if they were in separate rooms and bathrooms and had never breached the law of chastity with each other.

I agree that we’re still in the relatively nascent stages of addressing gay concerns, but I think that the differences from the priesthood ban example preclude any assumption that this issue will chart a similar course, for the reasons cited above. For most of its life the priesthood ban was an obscure, peripheral issue. I believe David O. McKay hadn’t even heard of it until he was an apostle on a visit to the South Africa mission. The Civil Rights movement certainly forced it to move to the forefront. But I think a key distinction to make is that the priesthood ban did not touch on core issues of the gospel (unless, of course, you were black). Removing it did not require a fundamental shift of doctrine — it simply opened up the existing doctrine to a wider range of people. SSM touches a deeper nerve, one that would force a reevaluation of what eternal families mean (and by extension, eternal progression via the family unit). That’s a central facet of the gospel, and one that is much more difficult to address.

I disagree with your assertions that 1) LDS marriage doctrine has become completely unrecognizable from the pre-Manifesto era and 2) the Church can issue a similar about face on SSM in response to societal pressure.

First, LDS doctrine remains very much open to the possibility of polygamy. We just might have to wait longer to institute it. In view of polygamy’s apparent open-endedness, I’m not sure that the Church’s doctrinal reversal in 1890 is quite as dramatic as it appears.

Second, the societal demand that the Church to change its stance on SSM is nowhere near the levels brought to bear on it for polygamy. The Church went kicking and screaming into monogamy. The language of OD 1 strongly suggests that the Church could choose either 1) drop polygamous marriages or 2) get completely shut down, which does no one any good. I can’t imagine anything similar occuring in today’s legal system and absent any legal pressure, the Church has very little incentive to give in to societal demands. It didn’t on the priesthood issue – by 1978, much of the societal pressue was gone as people gave up on budging Mormons to change their stance.

I think that the Church is already making moves to agree with scientific understanding of homosexuality based on genetics – but I disagree that it will matter. Genetic predisposition will be seen as a cross to bear in mortality, but the Church can still maintain its position on the eternal gender of the soul.

FireTag:

I agree that the HOW is important, and I don’t preclude the possibility of receiving further light and knowledge on the nature of eternal families. I simply think that it’s highly unlikely to expect it. I can see the Church eventually moving towards some sort of equality solution by allowing gay couples on a temporal level, but never on an eternal one.

FD, your degeneracy is showing :p.

“That’s a rather shocking demonstration of the degeneracy of our generation. It used to be accepted that romantic love, or Eros, was a lesser love. And that the greatest love was Agape, or selfless love, also known as charity, the pure love of Christ, ect.”

Cicero, you’ve misunderstood what I meant here. I apologize if it wasn’t clear in the post, but let me clarify here. I’m talking about the kind of love you (should) have for your spouse or significant other. It’s pure, it’s selfless, you only have their best interest at heart — AND it’s romantic because it’s different from how you feel about your mother or your neighbour. So the type of love one has for a husband or wife is “degeneracy?” Aren’t we always praising that type of love in the Church?

You are right about how difficult it will be for the LDS to adjust its theology to incorporate any principles that can bring gays and lesbians fully into your fellowship. The Community of Christ struggles mightily with issues of incorporating those with same sex orientations fully into our fellowship, and our theology only tries to worry about family life in the physical realm.

But consider that you claim to know less about HOW family life relates to life “before” and “after” our physical existence than you claim that such family life DOES relate to the “before” and “after”. There can be hope for new revelation about the HOW that would preserve the claim of family importance and still allow full participation in that eternal family life on the basis of full gender and sexual orientation equality on earth as well as heaven.

“If any of you lack wisdom….”

I agree that the implications of accepting Same Sex Marriage is huge right now, but most of the consternation concerning the LDS position on the Priesthood ban did not surface until about the 1950′s, that’s just about the time it was becoming a social issue in the US broadly. While we have the entire history of the Priesthood ban behind us as something to analyze we *may* be in the preliminary stages of the similar movement regarding sexuality. Obviously my prediction was cynical, but partly for reasons you mention but fail to thoroughly address in your response. The family is the central focus of Church doctrine and belief, and yet in our own substantiated history that doctrine has been wrenched into an unrecognizable contrivance far removed from the fundamental model *revealed* by the Church’s founder and his high ranking and intimate successors. If we can so quickly abandon polygamy, an ideal which has very little historical support – which is why I think it hasn’t been completely thrown out, then why can’t they radically adjust it further to again appease the social demands the Church must compete with. You yourself see to indicate that polygamy only seems to survive because of it’s prevalence in Church history, to which I agree.

The Church has recently had to soften it’s position on the Nephite heritage belonging to Native Americans because science has demonstrated the absoluteness, though I admit not the completeness, to be far from true. They pulled away from an entrenched tradition on plural marriage, only to now market a brand of marriage which was one time considered to an aberration, without so much as blinking an eye to the inconsistency with current scripture and tradition. If geneticists are able to determine a bona fide genetic link to sexual orientation and homosexual emotion, I think the Church will have no other choice than to eventually embrace them into the fold. If so, precedence says they will offer very little in the way of explanation other than it was part of Gods mysterious ways, change the policy and then do their best to act as though this issue had never existed.