August 2, 2010

Here's My Interpretation of The Church's Stance



So in my previous post, where I simply described the epiphany that I had, there was once again raised the debate of what God accepts in the gay realm. So I want to share how I have interpreted the Church's stance on Gays. I may be wrong, I may be the next official church policy writer, but this is how I see it.

God loves everyone. Bad, good, young, old, gay, and straight. God is a perfect parent, and has an endless amount of love that he shares equally with all of his children.

God set out a plan for the world. Part of this plan was the use of sex. Sex was used mainly for a way to bring his own children onto this earth. He designed the way for this to happen. A man and woman would have sex, the ultimate sign of love and the vehicle that would bring God's other children to the earth. Sex is first and foremost a way to bring his children here. I don't think that can be disputed. There is other meanings for sex. Sex is a commitment of two married individuales to share their love. Sex is a sign of love, because it is the most sacred and personal aspect of ones self that can be given. When sex is used in the proper way, it is not only this ultimate sign of love, but it is also a sign to be a keeper of God's children. However the world has severely abused this purpose of sex. Now sex is a sport, and sign of love, or something to do when one is bored. So to recap, sex is a vehicle to bring God's children to earth, and a ultimate sign of giving one self to someone else.

God's purpose of sex was ment from the beginning to be between a man and woman, who have taken the steps to show there commitment, namely marriage. That was a process that God allowed as a token, or point at which sex would be allowed in his eyes.

It is no wonder why gays want to be allowed to marry. I understand their plight. They want to be able to share in the same expression others have in sharing love to their loved one. Sex is important for any couple, straight or gay, because it is the giving of one self. I understand that, and can appreciate that. However, in Gods plan sex between two men or two women was not his intended purpose.

God did not intend sex to be between two men, or two women. Let me be clear, SEX was not ment to be between two men, or two women. While I, nor the church, proclaims to believe nature vs. nurture, I cannot say God made me this way, or whether through a million different factors I grew the affection I have to men. I don't think that matters much anyways. I still hold the view that Gods intended purpose for sex, was to be between man and woman. Also that marriage was intended to be between man and woman. Hence my support for traditional marriage. (Side note: I support all the equal laws and rights given to same sex couples, for I hope to have a partner one day. But to change the intended reason for marriage is not right. I support civil unions or what ever you would like to call it, with all the same legal rights as a married couple has.)

Does God frown upon gay couples? What I can say I believe is he frowns upon is gay sexual relations. ONLY because it was not his intended purpose for his children. Do I think God hates gays. HELL NO! Will I be eternally punished for having a boy friend in this life? I don't believe so. If I have sex with a guy, will I be submitted to a form of punishment, lesser kingdom? I feel yes. Does this mean God loves me less? No.

I don't think God hates that I want to spend all my time with a man. I don't think he cares that I feel emotionally more connected to a man than a women. I do think he cares that I would use his gift of sex against what its original purpose is. Even though sex has the two main components, children and love, it would still be using it in a way God did not intend it to be used.

2nd side note: Now something that bothers me. Gay members hate to be compared to disabled people or drug addicts when being talked to by other members. HEY, I understand it bothers me too. However one thing I don't get is, how that could make someone so offended, but then they compare themselves to animals. I have heard many times, "well lots animals have gay sex!" So you would rather be an animal than a alcoholic or disabled person?! What ever floats your boat dude!

That is my understanding. I expect many comments with differing ideas and contrary comments. Thats fine. Just remember I am imperfect, and do not proclaim to be the authority on this issue. I speak from what I know. The only authority I claim is my life experiences, my personal beliefs and what I have learned so far.


  1. Quinn,

    Maybe you can give me an answer to this question that I ask so many people with similar views. Granted they are usually straight.

    If you believe in supporting all the rights to give equal protection under the law to Gay and Lesbian couples then why not call it marriage? After-all, right now in every state in the union gays can get married. They can go down to their episcopal church and be married before God. Given that fact and your belief in equal rights, why not simply support Gay Marriage?
    Each church still gets to decide how they feel God interprets such marriages, but under the society of laws that we live under we would be equal. Your thoughts?

  2. Hi Trevor,

    Ok, I’ve been a blog stalker for a while now, and figured it was time for me to comment. First, I wanted to note that in the majority of my experiences, the “animals have gay sex” argument is only used when someone throws out the argument that “gay sex isn’t natural.” I don’t think it is mainly used as a comparison to “thus I as a gay man am an animal” (although there are some who believe the “you and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals...” think), but is more often a counterpoint that illustrates not only the logical fallacy of the argument, but used to show that there really is no such thing as “natural” or “normal” – because everyone can have differing definitions of these words. Sure, I don’t think gay sex is natural or normal for straight people, just like I don’t think straight sex is natural or normal for gays. So to me, the animal argument is more tongue-in-cheek, at least in my view.

    Secondly, while I do think it is possible for God to approve of gay relationships, including gay intimacy (and therefore, this is a point upon which we disagree), I would simply like point out something using LDS quotes; not to prove my point of view, but simply to give you something to think about.

    Quote 1: “Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.”

    Quote 2: “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is unattainable in the absence of it” ~Boyd K Packer, BYU Fireside, Nov. 3, 1963

    I believe romantic love is impossible without the bond that results from sex, and would even argue that this bond, as Boyd K Packer puts it, is a requirement necessary for salvation. If this is the case, I believe the purpose of sex to create this romantic love is even greater than the purpose of having children (because exaltation is not contingent upon having children).

    Am I going to be better off in the next life for being found in possession of romantic love, even if it is toward another man? I guess that may be another are upon which we disagree… but hopefully that will give you something to think about, or help your understanding, or even reconfirm your own position based on your own experiences.

  3. You've identified two purposes for sex:

    1) "Sex was used mainly for a way to bring his own children onto this earth."
    2) "Sex is a sign of love, because it is the most sacred and personal aspect of ones self that can be given."

    You indicate that God only allows sex between a man and a woman who have gotten married--who have shown and publicly affirmed their commitment to each other "as a token".

    You also indicate that you don't believe that God frowns on (non-sexual) gay relationships, and that there is no punishment in store for those who enter into same-sex relationships, unless those relationships become sexual.

    My own thoughts on the subject...

    For quite a while, the church taught that sex was only for procreation. Some leaders even went so far as to suggest that sex with a woman at the wrong point in her cycle (i.e. when she wasn't ovulating and so conception was impossible) was inappropriate.

    If this was indeed the case--if sex was nothing but a procreative act--then I could understand the prohibition against extramarital (including same-gender) sexual intercourse. The best and most supportive environment for the rearing of children is one in which parents are committed (to each other, and to the family that they intend to raise together). Marriage is, as you say, a sign of that commitment. It makes sense (if sex is entirely procreative) to restrict the act to those who have married and indicated their willingness to create and raise children.

    In the last fifty or so years, though, the church has allowed (as you have in your post) that sex can have another purpose--that of binding a couple together and strengthening the love they have for each other. [As an aside, it should be mentioned that the early Saints (and in fact the general population in the ninteenth century and earlier) did not see love as a significant consideration in their relationships. A husband might very well have had no significant feeling for his wife (or wives), marrying primarily so that he could have children.]

  4. If, as you've indicated, sex serves this second purpose, it makes quite a bit less sense to restrict the act to heterosexual couples, or even perhaps to married couples of any sort.

    If that "token" of commitment that is marriage indicates a willingness and desire to raise a family, then we're back to suggesting that sex is entirely procreative, or at least that only those couples who have the desire and ability to have children qualify for "legal" (God-approved) sexual relations.

    But if that "token" instead indicates a commitment to each other (completely separate of any desire or ability to have children), there is no justifiable reason to prohibit a loving and committed same-gender couple from enjoying the bonding and intimacy that sex provides.

    If you say that the dual purpose of sex is what matters, and that the rearing of children is an equal or greater element in the equation, then it would be inappropriate to allow infertile heterosexual couples to have sex.

    If you do allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry and have sex, then you are implying that it is the secondary purpose (i.e. to strengthen the relationship) that is the more important one, and that the question of children is peripheral.

    I don't see any other way to look at it. Either sex is entirely procreative (in which case it should be restricted to those who are able and willing to procreate--and to demonstrate that commitment by marrying), or it isn't (in which case and it doesn't make sense to prohibit same-gender couples from enjoying it too).

    (I would personally go a step further, and declare that only procreative sex should be restricted to those who have committed to each other via marriage, while non-procreative sex (where sufficient steps are taken to ensure that no child will result from the act) should not be restricted to a single type of relationship, when other (non-married) relationships might also benefit from the emotional bonds that it promotes--but I hardly expect much agreement on this point).

  5. ... And I was going to comment on the "animals do it" sidenote, but Gay Saint seems to have covered that one.

    (If you're getting sick of my comments, feel free to say so and I'll go away--I don't want to come across as argumentative, and I don't want to give offense).

  6. I will try to answer all your questions and comments, but I am only one person, so I apologize if I don't get to everything you have said.

    @David- That is a good point and something I have thought about myself. If I am for everything but the institution of marriage, why not just give in.

    There is the fact that if I started a club, ment only to be for people who grew up in Washington State, and there is someone who has all the same attributes as a Washingtonian, but grew up in Oregon, why not let them in. They my love Washington just as much as I do. They may support the WSU Cougars, like I do. They may know the in's and out's of Washington better than I. But once I let a Oregonian join the Washington club, it no longer is the same club as I started.

    This analogy, while imperfect, serves (I hope) to illustrate, that what God's laws, don't change to fit what we would like. If he created marriage as man and woman, who am I to tell him, "you have to let me in too." He dictates the standards and requirements.

    Point two. I know Im going to get a lot of grief on this one. Say gay marriage were to become a federal law. Along comes a church who refuses to recognize that marriage, or perform it. What happens then?

    @Gay Saint and Scott- Thank you for coming out of the dark, stalking can be creepy, although Im flattered. :)

    That is true that it is used for a "natural" argument, but then one could say, some animals eat each other. Is that ok for humans? I was just trying to say I have hated that angle to a gay argument.


    "I believe the purpose of sex to create this romantic love is even greater than the purpose of having children (because exaltation is not contingent upon having children)."

    True exaltation is not dependent on having children, but I would argue that the romantic love can come in other forms then JUST sex.

  7. (SCOTT, Im going to address your thing here too.)

    Is sex to form a loving bond more important that sex to create children?

    Scott has created this as a one or the other choice and I don't think that is true.

    "Either sex is entirely procreative (in which case it should be restricted to those who are able and willing to procreate--and to demonstrate that commitment by marrying), or it isn't (in which case and it doesn't make sense to prohibit same-gender couples from enjoying it too)."

    A intimate (aka spiritual) relationship can be achieved without sex, although Id shutter to think of not having sex with someone I love.

    I am no master of sex (that sounds so bad lol). I wouldn't dare give one purpose of sex greater or lesser value, because I don't have God's knowledge.

    "...this bond, as Boyd K Packer puts it, is a requirement necessary for salvation. If this is the case, I believe the purpose of sex to create this romantic love is even greater than the purpose of having children (because exaltation is not contingent upon having children)."

    I would argue that sex should come after this stage of a relationship is built. Sex does not make a relationship romantic, it does not create the love that is necessary for the reward of salvation. I would argue that sex comes after this aspect of the relationship is built. It seals it.

    Kind of like a miracle doesn't come till after the trial of your faith. Seeing a miracle doesn't give you faith. Faith lets you see the miracle for what it really is. Sex doesn't give you a romantic relationship. A romantic relationship gives you the proper setting for sex.

    So why would God not want a gay couple to have sex? Because he never intended for two guys or two girls to be joined in this manner.

    @Scott - Im not sick of your comments, or anyones for that matter. Sometimes I feel a bit overwhelmed with the girth (sorry I had too) of them.

    I appreciate that you don't want to be argumentative. I don't either. It is one of the biggest down falls of reading someones blog. You don't know the manner of which they intend you to interpret what they write. You could read something in an angry yelling voice when it was ment as a mear joke. Thats is one of the biggest reasons I switched to audio. That way I can deliver the content, how it was written.

    I much prefer discussions in person, because you get the full context of someones comment with facial, and body signals, voice tones etc. But for now this will have to do.

  8. I've been trying really hard to just bite my tongue, but there are a few comments I want to make.

    "Say gay marriage were to become a federal law. Along comes a church who refuses to recognize that marriage, or perform it. What happens then?"

    Absolutely nothing. The idea that the church would somehow be forced to preform same sex marriages if they become legal has no basis in fact. Gay marriage is currently legal in 5 states (in MA for over 6 years now). The church has not been forced to preform any gay marriages in any of these states. Gay marriage also enjoys recognition on a national level in 10 different countries. Most notable among these countries are the Netherlands (for almost 10 years) and Canada (for 5 years). In none of these countries, has the church been forced to preform same sex marriages. I should also point out that interracial marriages were legal in the United States for more than 10 years before the church received the 1978 revelation extending the priesthood and temple ordinances to its black members. They were not forced to preform any marriages during this time. The United States has incredibly strong protections for freedom of religion - it's spelled out very clearly in the constitution.

    There is one other idea I wanted to address. If I understand you correctly, you feel that God would not be ok with gay sex, but that he wouldn't really care if you had a boyfriend, had a special connection with him, held hands, went on dates, lived together, etc. (Maybe I'm not correctly summarizing your feelings on this, not sure).

    If this is the case, I feel you're missing the point. Either homosexuality is a part of God's plan, or it's some kind of sin/defect that needs to be overcome. If you take the church's current stance on this, then anything that detracts from your ability to form an eternal marriage necessary for your salvation is a problem. Having a boyfriend is a problem because it prevents you from seeking the celestial relationship that you should be working towards. Anything short of actively working towards that relationship isn't going to be pleasing to God.

    Personally, I don't believe in a God that would create his children in a way that fundamentally motivates them to move away from him. It's like pushing someone down a hill and then getting mad at them for falling down. I also don't believe in a God who is going to look at a gay family in the final judgment and tear them apart for the rest of eternity.

  9. @Trevor,
    I get your point about your beloved WSU fan club. However granting civil marriage as a civil right would not touch God's definition of marriage in the least. You do see that right? I used the episcopical church as an example of that because in places where there isn't civil marriage equality Anglican bishops can (and do) perform religious marriages. Are they effecting God's definition of marriage? I submit that they do not.

    As for your second point here comes the flak (I almost spelled that it flague because it rhymes with plague, that's weird).
    The answer to your question is absolutely nothing. As federal law recognizing civil marriage would not touch religion in the least if a religion refuses to grant gay marriages they perfectly can do that. If they recieve public (state/federal) monies for their wedding hall then they could be in trouble if they refuse to allow the use of the facilities(not the minister et al) to a gay couple based solely on the grounds that they are gay.

    The LDS Church, with its private temples whose entry is gained only by a subset of its own base, will never be in violation of any discrimination suit. In fact the Church, right now, could choose to prevent mixed-race couples from marrying inside the temple and there is nothing that can be done about it in a legal sense.

    Your rebuttal?

  10. @David-
    1- Marriage is NOT a right. Everyone throws around the word "right" and most do not know what that word means, in terms of the law or constitution. Please don't have a right to a job, don't have a right to live in a house. Those are privileges. There are three rights that we have. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In our country (cant speak for others because they have different rules) those are the three right, everything else is a privilege.

    One might argue that the "right" to marry would fall under the pursuit of happiness, and they would have a strong argument. But all to often in our current time, the word right is tossed upon any and everything anyone wants.

    I know you spoke of civil right, which would be more in line, but I want to clear that up for others who don't know the difference.

    As to the government enforcement of this law, I would, unfortunately, have to point to the days of polygamy. If the government had the right to punish, imprison and fine the church for practicing polygamy,
    which was a purely religious matter, what would make one not foresee the government punishing church's that would forbid same sex marriages.

    2 side notes:
    A: Yes I know this is a "slippery slope" argument, but it definitely needs to be looked at.

    B: I am not suggesting this current administration would do such a thing. Seeing their lack luster response to any matter that doesn't involve race (Sherry, and Mass. Police) I doubt they would even get to it before the are booted out of office.

    However, with the right kind of people in power, it very well could happen.

  11. @El Genio-

    "If this is the case, I feel you're missing the point. Either homosexuality is a part of God's plan, or it's some kind of sin/defect that needs to be overcome.

    I think you need to go back and read my original post. Because I discuss this there.

    Nature vs. Nurture-

    You, it appears, take the stance of Nature. I do not have a stated position on this (as I mentioned in the post). So I cannot comment on God creating gays just so we can roll down the hill away from him.

  12. I adore you, Trevor. Just wanted to let you know that, as do my kids as well as Mike. You are very wise...I never knew that about you! Next time you come see Sam, stop by our home and stay for a few...we can play Curses again! Audrey would praise your name forever cause no one else ever wants to play it with her!