Also, I don’t really understand the “dating” thing. I have plenty of gay friends, in and out of the Church, that I might go on an outing with, to the theater or movies or something. I don’t think of these as dates, though. Dating to me implies, potential love interest. I try to stay away from potential love interest people, because I’m too tempted by them.

Or are you only hoping that gays and lesbians would have some special classification that would allow non-marital sex?

SSM would allow everyone the opportunity of marrying before having sex and/or starting families. The SSM couples I know of have been together for years, do not want to start families, and are delighted that (in the state that allows for SSM) they can legally commit to a partner. I see no harm there; just good all around.

Questions:

1. Could an already SSM couple be baptized into the LDS church? Would they have to get divorced and live apart?

2. What would be the purpose (besides self-denial and “proving” oneself) of splitting up a family in this manner?

3. If you consider SSM wrong, what kind of commitment would you expect the Church to honor (eventually)? Would it depend on the number of years together, depth of love, intensity of feeling, stabilty of partnership?

Donna… I’m not in favor of SSM, you’re right. My understanding of current Church doctrine (and my commitment to abide by it) keeps me from pursuing any intimate relationships … my belief is that the Lord has more to say on the matter, and my hope is that it will afford me the space to pursue a committed relationship.

In the mean time, I date… and work on my litany of other short-comings.

If you’re not in favor of SSM and you believe that all gays should be celibate/abstinent for life, what’s the issue? The Church is in agreement with you, you’re in agreement with them, and all is right with the world.

I think that there is a wealth of benefit from people pairing-off, but that’s not what the argument is about… it’s about the perks the state offers married couples to encourage the pairing-off in the first place, and to dissuade disollution of the pair-bond — all, obstensibly, for the benefit of the next generation (though we could be doing a lot more to improve the institution of marriage).

I was not solely responding to your comments, but to several comments made by yourself and others. The part you take umbrage at was more specifically aimed at Martha Ann’s comments than anything you posted.

Why do you oppose same-sex marriage?

Not because it is (necessarily) wrong, but because it implies that any such comparison was made — at least by me. What I did say was that (in some imagined future) an affirming revelation vis a vis gays and the Church was welcomed much like the 1978 proclamation was: by the press and outsiders as a pragmatic ploy by the Church to deflect criticism, and as an excuse to leave the Church by many within.

But since you bring it up, I would like to make a few points…

“One has a clear and consistent Church position (homosexuality) and one does not (race).”

I would submit that, while trinitarian Christianity has a solid record on the matter (at least as far as I can tell), the modern Church has little or no history on the matter at all. From what I gather, starting after WWII, there were a few decades where the subject was discussed at all, and the rhetoric was strong and un-waveringly harsh. Then about a decade ago, the rhetoric began to soften. To a point where, today, bishops and Church leaders who actually deal with homosexuality within their congregations are of several opinions on the matter.

Moreover, a solid tradition on any given issue is hardly an excuse to continue it. I’m certain that any reader can come up with dozens of examples — both within the realms of religious thought and without — on their own.

Your third point continues a line of thought that I’ve heard elsewhere: that somehow being anti-SSM is _necessarily_ anti-homosexuality. Which is silly. I’m gay… and I don’t support the current SSM movement.

And finally, I take umbrage at your insinuation that I “do not understand the Lord drives the Church”. I love this Church, I love the Lord, and I know that his prophet leads it… My path, here, is not one of revolution but of polite inquiry. I’m sorry that isn’t obvious.

…

When I saw your post, I thought you were going to make a point that I’ve been thinking of for some time… namely, that within the Mormon gay and lesbian community, I’ve often heard references to the 1978 proclamation… but sadly, the rhetoric is always of a vein that suggests that these people (who should know better) think that the proclamation was a political, rather than prophetic move.

I personally believe that it was wholly prophetic… and that until that point in time, the Church was un-prepared to welcome — let alone minister to — the enormous influx of converts that awaited us on the African continent. In fact, I believe that had the Church been introduced to Africa sooner, that there would have been “mormon” congregations across the continent with no shepherd at all to guide them, and no connection to Salt Lake to speak of… and that the fate of the early Church in the first millenia AD would have been the fate of the Church in Africa.

But I digress.