It’s quite a leap, however, to suggest that a decision by Canada or the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is the harbinger of a change in the church’s understanding of marriage, and that a failure by other jurisdictions to follow their leads is somehow the “enemy” that prevents gays from marrying and therefore keeping the commandment.]]>
Got it. Thanks.]]>
I’m late to this discussion, but I wanted to react to this by pointing out that when you say that homosexuals won’t even “admit” that their behavior is sinful, you are suggesting that we know it is, but just don’t want to ‘fess up. In fact, many of us who are gay genuinely believe that homosexual behavior is no more inherently sinful than heterosexual behvior. In other words, we have nothing to admit.]]>
The situation is not as “black and white” as you might suppose. My former wife served a mission in Ireland, during a time when the Catholic-inspired civil law completely prohibited divorce. It was quite common to find heterosexual couples who cohabitated without the benefit of marriage for many years, because one or both partners had a previous marriage, which could not legally be dissolved, thus the “new” couple could not legally marry. It may surprise you to know that the LDS church routinely allowed the baptism of these persons, realizing that the couple remained unmarried (and yes, sexually intimate) only because they were legally prohibited from marrying.
Here in the U.S., I am personally aware of at least one situation where a gay member of the LDS church, who attends regularly but does not hold a calling or temple recommend, was threatened with disciplinary action, based upon his intimate relations with his partner of several years. He and his partner happen to have travelled to Canada to be legally married in that jurisdiction, quite some time ago. This presents a challenge, of course, to the LDS reasoning that homosexual intimacy is wrong due to the lack of marriage between the partners. If disciplinary action is taken, this will “put the lie” to that reasoning, making it appear insincere, at best. Further, the situation has garnered a certain amount of publicity. As you may know, stake presidents routinely request and receive guidance from higher authorities in unusual situations. It is significant, therefore, that the matter has been quietly dropped.
I really do understand your commitment to the teachings of LDS leaders, bbell. I was once at least as militant as you are, and even more so. With age and experience, however, I learned that few things are as clear and unquestionable as they initially appear.]]>
I regret to inform you that your understanding of the LOC is wrong. Who taught you this? “The LOC arguement doesn’t hold up with me- my uncle is breaking the LOC with his partner of over a decade because he is not legally allowed to make his partnership legal. I’m not interested in opening the SSM can of worms, however, it is a fact, if they could be legally bound, they would be. Then, the LOC arguement would be mute.” This is simply false.
Any homosexual sex is a violation of the LOC whether between Massachussetts married Lesbians and 2 guys in a bathhouse who never met before.
Its that simple.]]>