- NEW!
by TheicidalManiac on July 5th, 2008
by redcatt63 is around here somewhere...... on June 3rd, 2008
by the Otter on August 4th, 2008
by Karine on July 5th, 2008
by Anonymous on September 29th, 2008
by ALM4 on November 4th, 2008
by LuckyBlueDiamond on January 20th, 2011
California reverses the ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. Do you agree?
by 23Skidoo on February 8th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
The gay agenda persistently parallel's, their struggle of equal rights with that of the blacks trying to establish, a right to read...
by PrimeFactor on January 23rd, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Will same sex marriages ruin humanity?
by anil m on May 6th, 2012
| 2 people like this
Prop 8 in California has been declared unconstitutional. Prop 8 is about preventing same-sex marriage! Great, right?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on February 7th, 2012
| 3 people like this
Honest Question: What rights do gay people NOT have in America? (Besides marriage in some states).
by ~*Araya*~ on March 23rd, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Can a gay couple get married in a mormon temple?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Don't forget, LDS church presidents (or "prophet" as Mormons call the church presidents) and BYU professors have in the past declared homosexuality a mental disease, and promised that they would deliver a cure. I'm sure that'll be making its way through clinical trials any day now. In the mean time, all you gay mormons, you've just gotta live a lie...God, apparently, respects that.
by TheicidalManiac on July 6th, 2008
For anyone that’s reading these comments and wonders if they’re true, I’d suggest you do a bit of research. LDS.org would be a good place to start—there’s almost forty years of Church magazines, General Conferences, etc., that you can search—but look just about anywhere. In the eyes of the Church, there is a *huge* difference between homosexuality and homosexual tendencies, and the only “cure” for homosexuality that the Church has ever promised is the cure for any other sin: repentance.
by the Otter on August 4th, 2008
I agree, but do not LIMIT yourself to the readings suggested above.
by TheicidalManiac on August 5th, 2008
We are definitely in agreement there, but it’s also important to recognize the *large* amount of erroneous information out there. Some it comes from members of the Church such as myself, but most of what you’ll find that‘s *way* off comes from openly hostile sources. Just remember: if it seems too weird to be true, there’s a good chance it isn’t.
by the Otter on August 5th, 2008
Actually, no, Tom; I’m applying that to Latter-day Saint authors, too. Plenty of Latter-day Saint authors—even General Authorities—have either ostensibly or actually said some pretty weird things, in their day.
As for the Book of Mormon, I’m really not sure what you’re referring to. The only Book of Mormon–based things I can imagine being construed as weird are some of the “miraculous” events, and since I know you (Tom) believe the Bible to be the word of God, I know you’re not throwing those out; to do so would destroy your own credibility.
Care to share?
by the Otter on August 5th, 2008
By the way…. I didn’t mention this before, since anyone that follows my original advice would probably find it, but I think it bears repeating: the Church actually teaches the exact opposite of what is suggested in TM’s answer. As the late President Gordon B. Hinckley pointed out, “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices” (*Reverence and Morality*, 47).
For a more thorough discussion of the Church’s position on same-gender attraction, I’d recommend reading the interview at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction .
by the Otter on August 5th, 2008
I suppose that Hinkley made that statement because he recognized the large problem on his hands; that so many men have been shamed into thinking that their orientation is evil, that they've tried to stuff themselves into a stereotypical Mormon lifestyle, thinking that God will answer their prayers for normalcy. They've done everything they were told they were supposed to do: the temple, a mission, repenting and praying, asking for help, reading...but at the end of the day many will realize that they are who they are...and sometimes they don't realize until they have a temple marriage and 5 kids under their belt that they just plain like dudes. It happens quite a bit. I know several cases from my original ward, and I know several people currently who are in the middle-part of the scenario I just described; the denial stage.
by TheicidalManiac on August 6th, 2008
Otter, you simply MUST stop assuming that all information about your church is either FROM the church or AGAINST the church. This is a false dichotomy that I've seen you suggest many times on Answerbag; 'well you have to read about the church from church sources or else it's just LDS-bashing.'
I know, I know, there are several scriptures to support that "with us or against us" mentality that your church (and also Georgy W) is very fond of, but man, you'll never make any intellectual progress by assuming that other points of view are evil points of view.
by TheicidalManiac on August 6th, 2008
TM, you may be right about Pres. Hinckley’s reasons for making that statement, but the reasons behind it are irrelevant to the fact that it remains the position of the Church. I only brought it up because it completely debunks your original supposition that the Church would “likely… encourage” someone to marry “for the purposes of keeping up appearances.”
Re: your second comment…. I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m doing this. I’m well aware that there are plenty of people out there that are neutral towards the Church. However, there is also a true dichotomy in that any given individual either believes it’s the true Church of Christ or he doesn’t; there’s really no middle ground there, is there?
by the Otter on August 7th, 2008
Well for once we agree...reason is not a factor in determining church policy. As far as debunking me...HARDLY. If the church encourages monogamous heterosexuality within the context of MARRIAGE, even among men who feel homosexual urges, then that is PRECISELY what they are doing, however I understand your objection to the phrase "keeping up appearances, and it is part of a larger argument I am making, so I will withdraw it for now and simply say that they do it for the purposes of observing God's will. However, when God's will includes such non-moral issues as being clean cut, not having piercings or tattoos, and avoiding the "appearance of evil," and when there is heavy social pressure within the church to be a sharp business-style dresser with a leather-bound scripture case with your name emblazoned in gold leafing on the cover...well...if that isn't keeping up appearances I don't know what is, but I'm sure I could find plenty more examples.
by TheicidalManiac on August 17th, 2008
Your second point betrays your inability to think the issue through objectively. I don't even think I need to expound on that. It's obvious. But I will anyway; NOT believing in your church is QUITE a different thing than actively engaging in activities AGAINST your church. You don't seem to recognize that, perhaps because your judgment is clouded by "with us or against us" philosophy that malodorously permeates the pages of your holy books.
by TheicidalManiac on August 17th, 2008
TM, you’re right that “If the church encourages monogamous heterosexuality… among men [that] feel homosexual urges.” However, the Church also *discourages* monogamous heterosexuality among men that don’t feel heterosexual urges. That’s Hinckley’s comment in a nutshell.
Next, you seek to criticize God’s will, despite actively maintaining his nonexistence. So which is it?
Disregarding that entirely, though, you continue to criticize our understanding of moral issues, claiming that you know which issues are moral and which aren’t. It’s always the same game with you, TM: anyone that doesn’t agree with you must admit that both their opposing viewpoint and any and all logical bases therefor are null and void. Even though you claim no basis whatsoever for your arbitrary perception, you maintain that it is the only accurate position and all must submit or face your wrath. (Frankly, it sounds like you have a God complex. Pretty ironic, that.)
* * * * *
Once we wade through your attempt to discredit any hope at logical disagreement, we come to your “social pressure” argument. I must admit, it’s very nice, and there certainly is a level of accuracy therein: some—probably most—members of the Church of Jesus Christ feel a certain level of peer pressure, just like the members of any other society or subculture. However, I’ve never seen it even remote approach the level you seem to be insinuating. To wit:
• Are there “clean cut” people in the Church? Sure, but there’s also those with long, scraggly hair (like a few of my friends at Church). Of course, if you’re just talking about facial hair (which some people—not me, but perhaps you?—feel is the antithesis of “clean cut”), I can’t even count the number of Priesthood leaders I’ve had that sported facial hair, as have my father-in-law and myself, while serving in leadership positions.
• Are there “business-style dresser[s]” in the Church? Sure, but there’s also those that show up in a T-shirt and sweatpants (like another friend that comes directly from his job at a local dorm cafeteria).
• Does the Church counsel against tattoos? Sure, but a long-time friend of our family has a nice butterfly on her ankle, and she’s currently serving as our ward Relief Society President—and she was Stake Young Women’s President, before that.
• Does it counsel against numerous piercings? Also yes, but my sister-in-law (who’s also a member of the Church) has a stud in her nose, another in her cheek, and a navel ring; and another friend I once had had seven(!) piercings in her (I believe) left ear.
• Do some people have “a leather-bound scripture case with [their respective names] emblazoned in gold leafing on the cover”? Sure, but I’d say they’re the exception rather than the rule. I certainly know I’ve never had one, and while my wife did get one as a gift, at some point, she doesn’t use that set any more because a friend gave her a homemade case, made from a place mat.
by the Otter on August 17th, 2008
Finally, regarding the latter of your most recent comments: I really think you’re reading *way* too much into something I’ve said, and I’m not even sure what it is you’ve misinterpreted so completely. Jesus Christ Himself told the Apostle John: “he that is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50, http://tinyurl.com/luke9-50\). My problem with you is that you *are* against us. You’re consistently attacking our members, our beliefs, and our Church. I am reminded of the Ammonite warriors in Alma 56, who stated: “we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone” (Alma 56:46, http://tinyurl.com/alma56-46\).
There are plenty of Answerbaggers with opinions that differ from mine, and I have never feared a debate with any of them (including you). However, unlike every other adversary I have encountered online, you don’t even seem to read what I have to say, let alone respond in a logical fashion. Given these insurmountable odds—that is, an adversary whose responses exist completely independent of any and all relevant information—I see no reason to continue this discussion, nor any other we have had. Since you do not now pose—nor have you ever posed—any genuine threat to me, I will do the Ammonites one better: I will preempt your next response and let *you* alone. If you care to chalk this up as another “win,” be my guest; per my updated screen name, I know who the true winner is.
Peace out.
by the Otter on August 17th, 2008
You may know mormons who have tattoos or who are not clean cut, but your church advises to the contrary. You know it, and I know it, and examples of personal variation say nothing about your church's teachings, only how strictly people adhere to those teachings. It's a comment on humanity, not church policy. You have obfuscated the true issue at hand, as usual.
You have also, again, straw-manned me. I don't criticize God's will, I criticize your claim to knowledge of it. I point out logical inconsistencies; it is necessary to say that "IF you are right THEN...etc etc" to expose those inconsistencies. Saying "IF you are right..." is very different from saying THAT you are right.
Jesus may have said “he that is not against us is for us” (which is logically false by the way) but he is speaking in direct contradiction to at least two other bible versus where God says "he who is not with me is against me." sic.
Mr Pot, in your final paragraph you succeeding only in calling a kettle black.
by TheicidalManiac on August 17th, 2008
By the way, I think you made a typo. You SAID "Peace Out," but I feel quite certain that what you meant was "Cop Out."
by TheicidalManiac on August 17th, 2008
Bravo, theicidalmaniac! You summed it up nicely in your acerbic initial comment that somehow it's better to hide such things than to have them out in the open.
by Opinion-man on September 5th, 2009