This was an issue before today's Supreme Court rulings but I just now thought of it. So if you are a gay Mormon married couple, will the church come after you if have sex? What about sex in states that allow gay marriage? States that don't? A musing. Has this been discussed.

I'm overjoyed today not to be part of *that* church.

If your having sex you will definitely be exed. On the slim chance you're married in a gay relationship and still going to the mormon church, they will call you in to talk and demand that you repent and live their law of chastity, or be exed.

So, essentially, it is not about sex within marriage, as apologist like to explain. It is anti-gay prejudice pure and simple, if this is what they would do. Not that it would surprise anyone.

Ding!!! Ding!!! Ding!!!

Give the man the fluffy pink Elephant! He got it in one!

Since the church still defines marriage as between a man and a woman, I assume they will still consider gay marriage sinful and discipline the offending parties. Eventually they probably will accept it, but not anytime soon.

Yeah, they don't believe in a marriage of ideas or flavors, let alone marriage between 2 unrelated consenting adults.

...let alone marriage between 2 unrelated consenting adults.


No, they still prefer that consenting adults be unrelated.

:)

This is still the official statement - The Family A Proclamation to the World.

There is no room for anything but marriage between a man and a woman.
What they do about same-sex marriage is probably the same position as they have held in the past; probable excommunication.

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

These rulings put some pressure on the proclamation. The Mormon Church finds itself yet further behind progress in a more enlightened society. They need a "revelation."

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These rulings put some pressure on the
> proclamation. The Mormon Church finds itself yet
> further behind progress in a more enlightened
> society. They need a "revelation."


Yes... I agree. The proclamation goes back to 1995.

But will there be a change? Hmmm.. I'm not betting on it.

I just can't imagine the LDS Church accepting anything in their marriage ceremony than a woman and a man.

The so-called proclamation to the world was part of the corporation's attempt to create a verbal wall of bigotry when the gay partnership movement was beginning in the U.S. in Hawaii in the early 1990s. The cult actively sought to stop the legislation in Hawaii and it worked. Call it one of the warmups to Prop H8.

The proclamation is the corporation's version of DOMA, which was the federal government's attempt to shield itself from the evil ravages of people loving on another.

Proclamation 1995
DOMA 1996

One declaration of love is stronger than a corporate proclamation.

Unfortunately the word of gawd in the immutable (lol) temple ceremony, on its face, does not have a prohibition against gay unions. It defines the law of chastity as "no sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded." Strictly speaking, those words admit same-sex unions into the circle of chastity.

These are the words that doom them, not the proclamation.

That's not all the proclamation focuses on. It was rolled out in the mid-90s when the cult started becoming heavily involved in global family issues, taking their hegemony on the road.

The momentum is so against them, but it is so hard to resist schadenfreude that I am simply glowing inside.

Yes, but since the Proclamation hasn't been put into the D&C, it is not official doctrine.

Good Witch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but since the Proclamation hasn't been put
> into the D&C, it is not official doctrine.


It's OFFICIAL POLICY... I think that's the point! It ain't going away!

Good thing you're WRONG. I make no prediction when, but eventually it will become like interracial marriage currently is. Something they "don't recommend", but also don't formally prohibit.

Sure wish people would quit spouting the cult party line like we need reeducation. Nobody has forgotten, most of us are busy hoping AND working for a better future.

The second official declaration regarding blacks in the p-hood happened ten years after the Civil Rights Act was signed, so I believe it will take about five-to-ten years for the morg to come around to human rights involving GBLT individuals but they'll never come around to human rights regarding women.

I don't know why sex is so important to getting into the Celestial kingdom. Do Mormons ask why God looks like a primate? I once heard a Mormon couple say humans don't look like primates. I wanted to say "Do we look more like lizards?"

I'm guessing that couple has never been to a natural history museum, anywhere in the world.

Humans don't look like humans? That makes no sense.

They will accept women as soon as they carry out a tithing boycott for equal rights.

I know, when pigs fly....

Seriously, they will be happy to offer the priesthood to women if there are lawsuits pending. If they will lose their tax-free status, that would be another incentive.

This pseudo-church does nothing based on principles, so if money rides on the acceptance of gays, homosexuals, etc, well, come on down.


Anagrammy

Articles of Faith:

#12...we believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

I guess we will see if they really mean that.

Apparently, "honoring, obeying and sustaining" applies only to the laws they buy. Dishonor the rest by proclamation. or committee.

But whatever.

Although they have used legal definitions of marriage to support their position, they do not have to suddenly change their stance just because something is now legal.

Alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, and not paying tithing are all legal and they are free to reject and condemn those all they want.

That's been the stupid part of this fight all along. They can accept or not accept whatever they want. The fact that others now have the same freedom is not a threat to that.

What I am attempting to say is the rationale for the Mormon Church to require celibacy from gays was that gays are not married, because sex is only acceptable within marriage. Now that gays can marry, if the church punishes married gay couples for having sex, then it is clear the issue really is not their marital status but their status as gay.

I am saying that the issue of gays not being married was simply a cover for prejudice (although thin). I wonder if more of whatever few gays Mormons remain in the church will leave now. The church, of course, has a history of defining for itself what "marriage" is regardless of what the law allows or doesn't, polygamy being the case in point.

I understand that, but my point is that claiming a legal definition of marriage was always a convenient excuse, but it never was and does not have to be their only reason for making religious declarations. The legal definition of marriage was never their only reason.

They are prejudiced, they are consistent in their opinions that gay sex is not allowed under any circumstances. The removal of a legal obstacle is inconvenient for their case, and does force them to be more honest about their real motives, but it does not force them to change their stance.

And really, it's better that way. The more they stick to their guns, refuse to adapt, and don't try to hide behind false compromise, the faster the whole thing will crumble.

I think we are making the same point :-)

Hi,

Actually, I dissent from the prevailing opinion here. I believe that the Church will be *forced* to change. Consider California, the most important state (because it's the largest, most populous state in the neighborhood of Utah). The Church can't ignore California. It can't pretend that gay marriage doesn't exist. Increasingly, the anti-gay forces will be seen as Medieval, anachronistic oppressors.

*Unless* the Church accepts gay marriage, it will contract, as gay supporters leave. Revenue ("tithing") will drop. Believe me: the Church will notice this. If it's a choice between revenue and condemning fa-ggots, rest assured that the Church will choose revenue. And then, it will issue a "revelation," accepting fa-gs, and in a fit of self-congratulation declare: "Isn't it marvelous? Isn't it wonderful?"

The Church fought for Proposition H8 because it knew that if California allowed gay marriage, it would *force* the Church to change. It was always a *financial* proposition. Most intelligent people in the Church know that the Church is a fraud. They're in it because of the many social and financial benefits that it confers on them. The problem is that any organization needs to maintain rigid boundaries if it's to remain viable. Unfortunately, the Church has defended a rigid "moral" boundary that oppresses 6% of the population. But this must have been seen as acceptable, because 94% "benefitted." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7611844) Fa-gs became collateral damage.

It seems that a large number of people in the Church are opposed to anti-gayism. The greater number of relatives that they have that come out of the closet, the more likely it is that they'll be supportive of homosexuals. It doesn't matter what the leaders in Salt Lake City proclaim, protest, preach, say, or want. The fact that New York and California have gay marriage represents a blistering blow into the very heart of Mormonism. The Church can no longer ignore it or preach hatred without incurring the wrath of tithe-paying (revenue generating) members. And so, again, it will come down to either taking a revenue hit or accepting fa-gs without prejudice.

Yes, the Church could simply try to force all of the fa-gs out, but again, that would alienate the straight supporters and decrease revenue. Whether the a--holes in Sale Lake City like it or not, they have no choice but to deal with the "problem."

Therefore, I predict a terse "revelation" that declares that fa-gs can marry, and we can all be one big happy family.

Steve

Hey Steve, I think that you make some very good observations here. I'm not sure that using gay slurs on this forums is a good idea. It's one thing to do it within our own community, using those words with love and affection, maybe humor, reclaiming them for ourselves. But there are people here who will not understand the context.

I think that it is also disturbing to our heroic straight allies, and can come off as disrespectful. Just a thought.

As far as Mormon Gay Celibacy is concerned...

it's as fictional as the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Hi Sonoma,

Good point. I'll stop doing so.

Take Care,

Steve

Are there any gay AND married mormons? And I don't mean the ones who have picked an unsuspecting opposite sex partner.

I am very curious how that will play out, should two mormons of the same gender take advantage of the opportunity... But why would they remain in a religion that despises them?

Will the morg lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to let a legally married gay couple join the church?

Or if they persecute a legally married gay couple who are already Mormons?

No, there is no threat of removing the church's tax exempt status. A church can allow anyone they want to be a member, on the flip side they can deny anyone they want.

If they would lose their tax exempt status for refusing membership to someone, anyone could sue to have it removed after an excommunication.

As for "persecute a legally married gay couple who are already Mormons" there are none. If there were any, it would be major news, the church would have it plastered all over the headlines to show how open and accepting they are. If they didn't, if anyone in the media caught wind of a married gay couple with full membership in the church, they would plaster it all over the headlines.

No, remember that "acting on SSA" in the church is an excommunicable offense. The church is clear on this. Entering into a gay marriage would be "acting on SSA" and both parties would be immediately excommunicated. In fact, as soon as anyone caught wind of an impending marriage between a gay couple, they would be excommunicated.

There would be no federal tax repercussions to the church. The church is essentially a club, they can say who are members and who are not.

Hi,

You're very right. The Church is a club. Just as certain clubs have barred blacks in the past, so, too, the Church can, does, and will bar homosexuals, sadly. I do think that they'll eventually be forced to change, but there has to be a significant financial benefit, or threat, to them to drive that change.

Ultimately, when they realize that continuing on their present course will cost them lost members (which translates into political power and--importantly--revenue), they'll have a "revelation." What I wonder about, though, is this. Given that they KNOW that the Church's foundational claims are false, why do they perpetuate their anti-gay discrimination? Do they fear that the whole thing would unravel?

*What maintains the anti-gayism?*

What benefit does the Church get--if any--in continuing their hate speech and other destructive acts against gays? Why, why, won't they stop?

Rather than asking this in an idle manner, I'm going to attempt to actually find out by contacting an active Mormon and former missionary who was partly responsible for my "conversion." Since he's now a professor, his answer should be interesting, or so I hope.

I suspect that the reality is that changing course now would undermine the members' faith in the leadership, and precipitate defections (resignations). What all of this goes to show is that inertia is a powerful force in social groups. All of them seek, above all, their own survival, and will do whatever it takes to survive, no matter what the collateral damage is.

Given the nature of human beings, do we have any viable alternatives to this?

Thanks,

Steve

<<Will the morg lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to let a legally married gay couple join the church?>>

No. I don't know why that question keeps coming up in our circle. The Morg will not lose their tax exempt status over this issue, ever. Even if the IRS did try to make a move in that direction (which they won't), the Morg has too many attorneys and too many friends in Congress.

My husband’s cousin is a TBM RM and married to her wife. They live in San Francisco. Her wife is ex-Pentecostal. The cousin posts on Facebook about hours long meetings with her bishop or stake president, and they won’t give her a calling, or a temple recommend, but no one has made a move to excommunicate her. Is it because the church is so darn sexist that they don’t think lesbians have sex or if they do it doesn’t matter? I tried to talk to her once with the intention of understanding how she can defend and support a church that condemns her. The conversation was polite, but I was still baffled at the end.

I don’t think the church wants any more negative publicity by excommunicating legally married gays.

Mormons say sex outside of marriage is a sin, and also sex between people of the same sex is a sin.

So now two married men having sex wouldn't be a sin under one count, but it would still be a sin under another count.

I do think the mormon church will gradually become more accepting of gay people over the years. I hope so anyway. It'll probably be a long time until they say gay sex isn't a sin though.

This does not affect churches in any way whatsoever. It also doesn't affect sex.

You may wake up with an erection, but if you touch it, you're gay.