Gay Marriage as the "Line In the Sand"

[TheDuke]

What does it mean to say that same sex marriage is prohibited in the manual? Please show this. I'm not saying it isn't there, I just don't see that wording. Perhaps if it isn't legal in the area? What if the couple is legally married? What does "prohibited mean"? No recommend? or they will not take their tithing? Only get the good callings? What if they promise their not imbibing, is that ok, or appearance important? would like to see the links and references.

[Dusty Wanderer]

It actually makes some sense to me. For example, there are MANY single women in the Church - far outnumbering available single men. They get lonely sometimes, and a woman-woman marriage (WITHOUT sexual behavior!) makes some sense, doesn't it? They could still get a Temple Recommend and attend the Temple, I think.

That is very true. I was sunday school secretary when I was attending the mid singles ward. When I was entering roll attendance I saw the attendance stats by gender. The single women out number single men 2 to 1. Of course most of the women are walking land whales by my observations.

And I do not think they should be allowed a temple recommend if they are engage in homosexual behavior.

I believe presenting themselves as a married couple is homosexual behavior, no matter what they say they do or don’t do in the privacy of their home. Homosexual marriage is a sin, in and of itself.

It’s utterly vain and fruitless. It makes a mockery of what God has sanctioned.

[marc]

Lizzy60: " Homosexual marriage is a sin, in and of itself."

Why do you say that - what basis? scripture?

To be fair, there's no scripture that says pedophilia marriage is a sin either. I mean how ridiculous are we going to get? As long as the grown man and his child bride don't have sex, right? Just typing this out gives me the creeps.

[HereWeGo]

That is very true. I was sunday school secretary when I was attending the mid singles ward. When I was entering roll attendance I saw the attendance stats by gender. The single women out number single men 2 to 1. Of course most of the women are walking land whales by my observations.

And I do not think they should be allowed a temple recommend if they are engage in homosexual behavior.

Agreed! whether that homosexual BEHAVIOR is performed in a time-only marriage, or not, it is sin and would exclude one from getting a temple recommend.

For the time being. Give it a year or two.

[NeveR]

The suggestion two men or two women need to be married just in order to live under the same roof as platonic housemates & companions is (frankly) absurd.

I mean since when right? What desperate rationalization is this?

It might make people feel (temporarily) reassured to think marriage can be de-coupled from sex and sexual acts, but the truth is it can't be.

Sure, marriage includes companionship, but it's basic fundamental purpose is to create a stable framework for sexual connection and the raising of children.

Marriage = state (and church) sanctioned sex.

If we start ascribing other meanings to it simply in order to square the circle of the church's changing attitudes we need to do it in full awareness and take full moral responsibility for what we are really endorsing.

[mikewoodings]

The single women out number single men 2 to 1.

I think I have a solution to this conundrum.

So do I. "Go to the gym!". Work on being an attractive high quality person.

Good advice. But even then, there would still be a massive surplus of women to men.

There’s a solution to this—a solution practised by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, Joseph Smith, and others.

Unfortunately no-one seems to be able to see this.

And it would also nicely solve the problem of living Celestial laws upon which exaltation is conditioned. Two birds with one stone.

You’re right about that Luke.. it’s gotten to the point where it’s not even a consideration. I’m sure the church puts their foot down hard though when FTM trans want to have more than one wife. ‘We always supported trans rights but polygamy is an abomination.’

[FoundMyEden]

No for me because this is still Gods church. As in that was the original intend when Joseph Smith organized it under the directive of God.

I find it very appalling that modern church leaders support this. Ezra Taft Benson considered homosexual behavior a sin.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

"I find it very appalling that modern church leaders support this. Ezra Taft Benson considered homosexual behavior a sin."

Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is still considered a sin!!

Our area authority explained this, saying the Church will support same-sex marriages - but NOT any homosexual activity, whether in that marriage or not.
Isn't this in the LDS Handbook somewhere?

There are many marriages that are "sex-behavior free". That seems to be fine.
Sexual behavior is ONLY condoned by the Church when between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married.

It actually makes some sense to me. For example, there are MANY single women in the Church - far outnumbering available single men. They get lonely sometimes, and a woman-woman marriage (WITHOUT sexual behavior!) makes some sense, doesn't it? They could still get a Temple Recommend and attend the Temple, I think.

Please correct me if I'm wrong... by the LDS Handbook, please.

Marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman and God. Yes, we have allowed government to get in on the whole marriage business when it should have remained a religious rite only.
If the Church allows two women or two men to contract a civil marriage and claim there is nothing sexual, and allows them temple privileges, then the Church is mocking God. People can be roommates. People can buy homes together and travel together without getting married. Marriage of two people of the same gender is a mockery, I don’t care what the Holy Handbook says.

I don't necessarily agree with a narrow definition of marriage (for mortality only) as being ONLY between a man and a woman.

Now, marriage in the Temple, that is, the sealing ordinance for time AND eternity, can ONLY be performed between a man and a woman in the Temple. THAT sealing ordinance is NOT going to change - as explained by Pres. Oaks at the April Gen. Conf. - great talk!

Bro Jones, I don't understand your view? You're a scientist. You understand how things work. Marriage is the binding and bonding of two flesh into one. It takes a key to unlock the door. The union of two people to become and make ONE FLESH. Man on man cannot do that, neither can woman on woman. Irregardless if they are without sexual behavior. Frankly, without sexual behavior...you're just roommates. So, redefining the definition of marriage is what the adversary had to do to create this kind of confusion.

Marriage/sealings on earth and in heaven is still a commandment only between one man and one woman...and now we have to clarify "biological" when before it was just common sense, and we didn't have to define that for confused people.

[FoundMyEden]

The suggestion two men or two women need to be married just in order to live under the same roof as platonic housemates & companions is (frankly) absurd.

I mean since when right? What desperate rationalization is this?

It might make people feel (temporarily) reassured to think marriage can be de-coupled from sex and sexual acts, but the truth is it can't be.

Sure, marriage includes companionship, but it's basic fundamental purpose is to create a stable framework for sexual connection and the raising of children.

Marriage = state (and church) sanctioned sex.

If we start ascribing other meanings to it simply in order to square the circle of the church's changing attitudes we need to do it in full awareness and take full moral responsibility for what we are really endorsing.

Just saw your comment after I posted mine which looks as though I just repeated what you had already said...lol. I agree 1000%

[Dave62]

The single women out number single men 2 to 1.

I think I have a solution to this conundrum.

Oh, really? I wonder if it might be plural marriage perchance...

[NeveR]

The suggestion two men or two women need to be married just in order to live under the same roof as platonic housemates & companions is (frankly) absurd.

I mean since when right? What desperate rationalization is this?

It might make people feel (temporarily) reassured to think marriage can be de-coupled from sex and sexual acts, but the truth is it can't be.

Sure, marriage includes companionship, but it's basic fundamental purpose is to create a stable framework for sexual connection and the raising of children.

Marriage = state (and church) sanctioned sex.

If we start ascribing other meanings to it simply in order to square the circle of the church's changing attitudes we need to do it in full awareness and take full moral responsibility for what we are really endorsing.

Just saw your comment after I posted mine which looks as though I just repeated what you had already said...lol. I agree 1000%

Yeah, I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously promote that it's fine to sanction gay marriage - provided the couple pinky swear not to have sex.

Not surprised no one came back to defend the idea!

Little bit annoying tbh.