Church stance on gay marriage proper - East Valley Tribune: Opinion

Church stance on gay marriage proper

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, July 6, 2008 5:23 pm | Updated: 10:59 pm, Fri Oct 7, 2011.

The commentary of Robert Parker ("LDS church on wrong side of gay marriage," June 29) has several false statements and innuendos needing correction. Parker's views definitely are not representative of active members in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He refers to our prophet, President Thomas Monson, and his two counselors issuing a letter encouraging church members in California to support heterosexual marriage. For clarification, I quote part of that letter: "In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters."

It then states: "A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage."

Parker tries to paint a picture contrary to these facts and insinuates that three out-of-touch men at the top of our church leadership are practically alone in opposition to a sea of support for gay marriage, and are leading church members down the path to destruction. There can be nothing further from the truth.

Parker calls Monson "the Lord's Prophet," yet in the remainder of his letter denies his prophetic counsel and consternates him and the church. Logically, if he's the Lord's prophet, then his advice comes as revelation, and he is only God's servant and messenger expressing his master's will, not his own.

I would implore Parker to not shoot the massager, but go talk to the author of the message.

Parker also claims the issue of the church's stand on gay marriage is but another error "by church leadership which needs correction, such as on the issue of priesthood for blacks." First, the ban on homosexuality is permanent, as evidenced in the first five books of the Bible devoting a lot of space to a detailed ban of the practice. The priesthood ban was temporary and the revelation lifting the ban states it was prophesied by past prophets that the ban would be lifted in the future.

A good comparison to the church's stand on homosexuality is it's very unpopular public stand against slavery in the 1830s. Using Parker's words, the church was "on the wrong side of this political issue." At the time, America was debating slavery and even whether blacks had a soul.

Abolitionists were not popular at this time. With much to lose and only the truth to gain, the church denounced slavery and stated blacks have a soul.

This was one of the reasons Missouri's governor issued the infamous Extermination Order of 1838 to exterminate all Mormons or drive them from the state. The church has never varied from its stand on slavery and will not on homosexuality, no matter the political unpopularity of the issue.

Political correctness changes, but truth is steady, sure and immovable.

Putting all Parker's religious arguments aside and appealing to unadulterated logic and reason, a huge percentage of the public today places little or no value on marriage and cohabitation has become a norm.

Why, then, would gays have so much interest in marriage, other than to use it as a political tool to further their cause? Why would gays want to embrace an institution that was formed with the expressed purpose of physically creating children, something they cannot do in a their relationships? I believe that logical individuals could only conclude that the reason gays want marriage is for its use as a highly conflicted political tool rather out of a genuine desire.

Also, if marriages for gays were legalized, logically other alternative lifestyles would be entitled to the same privilege. Polygamists would have to be granted the same rights. Perhaps those practicing bestiality would have to be considered for the same rights.

Where will it end or how insane does it have to get?

Tom Wilkinson of Mesa is a stock and bond broker.

  • Discuss

Facebook

EastValleyTribune.com on Facebook

Twitter

EastValleyTribune.com on Twitter

Google+

EastValleyTribune.com on Google+

RSS

Subscribe to EastValleyTribune.com via RSS

RSS Feeds

Spacer4px
Your Az Jobs