As a matter of the theology of the ordinance of marriage given to humans by God:

I agree that you cannot divorce marriage from chastity, or chastity from marriage in the gospel. The two concepts are an intertwined, single concept. Justified sexual relations [in God's sight] are only ones that take place within a marriage relationship where permanence is created. So, yes, if any-and-all same-gender couples fail to meet the law of chastity, then I can admit that their sexual unions could never be justified [in God's eyes] — even if they lived together and proclaimed themselves as married.

Personally — my mind’s not made up on whether God condemns or justifies same-gender relationships. It’s a realistic possibility in my mind that He’s concerned about people having committed sexual ethics and healthy, fulfilling companionships — than He is with what genders the parties involved were born with. It may be that He told Paul to tell the Romans/Ephesians about “men lying with men” because of what the men who were lying with men in Rome and Ephesus were doing and why they were doing it. That’s a valid, non-wresting way to interpret the scripture.

But that may be wrong, I’m not closed-minded about it. It may be that the scriptures only describe marriage in terms of “men taking a wife” and only describe adultery in terms of “women breaking their wedding vows”, etc. because God only thinks about it in those exact gender-specific terms. I could possibly accept that that the wording used has nothing to do with the constraints of thousands of years of male-privilege in society and male-centric focus in human languages.

I can admit that the scriptures do indeed assume heterosexuality a priori — in the same way that fish would assume water. But does that mean only water exists — or that the revelations were given to fish [and not to land animals]? I don’t pretend to have that answer. But I simply don’t expect the scriptures we currently have to tell us anything explicit on issues related to current trans-gendered or homosexually-oriented people. That’s like expecting the scriptures to tell us about energy drinks, cell phones, or internet usage.

I also think that, in our for-time arrangements, the Lord would be more concerned with people who take advantage of, abuse, lie to, and cheat on their partners — than He would be with people who find emotional and sexual fulfillment in a committed, same-gender relationship. I’d expect we need further light and knowledge from the Lord as to how the clear the way between which one it’s to be [is it committed sexual ethics -- or heterosexuality only, for everyone, all the time].

As a matter of civil marriage recognition:

What I believe as an LDS should only affect what I accept in myself and what I vote for or speak for/against in the affairs of civil government. So let’s say that I move from a state of “on the fence” about same-gender relationships [religiously] and I move onto the ground of being for heterosexual marriages only. That still doesn’t make the political issue any different.

The “civil rights” of the gay marriage debate is that [in the eyes of the state] there should be equality under the law and protection of the rights of minorities from the tyranny of a majority. Human beings have a right to self-actualization, which includes seeking fulfillment in relationships with other people. We’re social animals — intimacy is part of our nature.

Obviously, as an anarchist, I’d like to see no state-issued benefits given to any couple via a purchased marriage licenses. Let everyone live how they want to live and let that be it’s own reward. But, insofar as we’re going to legally-recognize and [especially] give civil privileges and benefits for committed marriage unions for one class — it is not proper for the state to deny access to that same recognition for another class based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, skin color, ethnicity, religion, or disability.

So, in this case — I’ve said that I favor a down-grading of every civil marriage to a “civil union certificate” for purposes of property, children, tax benefits, etc. that a couple is free to get [or not get] however they see fit. And then religious groups are free to solemnize and recognize marriages within their congregations however they see fit [using/recognizing the civil union certificates however they see fit as well].

The only way you can interpret #2 different than #1 is if you believe that the law of chastity has either fundamentally changed since April 1990 or that the law of chastity has not changed but had not been fully revealed prior to April 1990 and now we have more light and knowledge from the new wording. Do you believe either of these scenarios?

I think there exists a third scenario which would be that the change was made to clarify a gender-inclusive meaning that was already there in the exclusive language of the original — clarifying a meaning that would be more akin to “people should only be sexually active in committed marriage relationships”.

This line:

But they already have this right. They can seek recognition in the same way hetero couples are able to, by marrying someone of the opposite sex.

is completely disingenuous every time it’s used. I’m saying that heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they are attracted to and desire to marry — that’s the right we’re talking about. A right of self-actualization, to find fulfillment sexually and emotionally according to the dictates of their consciences and the desires of their hearts. So it’s not a “different way” to say that same-gender couples have a right to the same marriage license as heterosexual couples — and saying so is being tongue-in-cheek [at best] or else purposefully deflecting.

We could get Brand Nu on here and ask him about inter-racial marriages. He could go through this exact same line of reasoning — e.g., black people have the same rights to marry that white people do because they are all equally free to marry any other person of their color, why do you want to give them a “different” set of rights than white people by allowing them to marry someone of a different race?

I’m applying the law of chastity across the board. It is not that I dislike homosexuality and like polygamy. I couldn’t care less what two men, two women, a man and a woman, or a group of people do in the privacy of their own homes. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, to each his own. But that is the anarchist in me speaking. The latter-day saint in me is duty bound to uphold the laws of God, whatever they might be. If it were justifiable before God for two men to have sexual relations, I’d say, “Have fun.” If it were justifiable for them to get married to each other, and then they could have sex with each other without breaking the law of chastity, then I’d be the first to encourage them to do that. So, this has nothing to do with my personal preferences. My only concern is the law of God. And because of that, I must discourage everyone from partaking of these wicked practices or promoting them in any way.

Some more conservative interpretations may say that the Law of Chastity definitely prescribes monogamy. What is your answer to that?

I believe we addressed that in Chapter 3 of the GEMTAM book. Please read that chapter for a detailed answer.

In regards to the Law of Chastity, why do you apply it to one situation you dislike, homosexuality, and not another you approve of: polygamy and tribal relationships? Some more conservative interpretations may say that the Law of Chastity definitely prescribes monogamy. What is your answer to that?

The law of chastity is obviously unclear because the language you quoted in not the language you will hear in a temple on any given day. Presently, it’s that the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam will not have sexual relations except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded. Which certainly does leave room for interpretation as applying to same-gender relationships. While obviously the language you quoted does not have such wiggle-room and would not allow justified same-gender relationships.

I’m sure you know where I’m going with all of this. Law of chastity #1 has only one interpretation, with no wiggle room. Law of chastity #2 is worded in a way that allows some wiggle room, if you set aside the rules of English grammar and its implied meaning. If you interpret law of chastity #2 in one way, contrary to its natural, implied meaning, it contradicts law of chastity #1. (In April 1990, legalized SSM did not exist, only heterosexual marriage, therefore daughters of Eve were paired to only husbands and sons of Adam were paired to only wives.) If you interpret law of chastity #2 in another way, in the way it is implied, it equates to law of chastity #1. There has been no stated or implied change to the law of chastity since the changed wording in April 1990, which wording changes were stated as given to shorten and streamline the endowment, therefore, #2 must be equal to #1, giving you only one possible interpretation. This is manifestly obvious and you appear to be dancing around the issue. Don’t you think that making #2 mean something different than #1 has all the trappings of a wrest? From the 1828 dictionary:

3. To distort; to turn from truth or twist from its natural meaning by violence; to pervert.

Wrest once the law to your authority.

Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the poor. Exodus 23.

Which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3.

But I’ll play along. The only way you can interpret #2 different than #1 is if you believe that the law of chastity has either fundamentally changed since April 1990 or that the law of chastity has not changed but had not been fully revealed prior to April 1990 and now we have more light and knowledge from the new wording. Do you believe either of these scenarios?

The “obviously unclear” law of chastity is an important topic to clear up because you cannot divorce marriage from chastity, or chastity from marriage. The two concepts are intertwined, or a single concept. So, if SSM is chaste, it is marriage. If it is not chaste, it is not marriage. Once you establish where it fits, then you can discuss the ramifications of its legalization and our duty as saints in relation to this issue. Our duty is to promote the truth, dispel errors and uncover lies, so it is important to determine if SSM is truly marriage and not a wicked practice before we start encouraging the state to legalize it. If it is not marriage, but wickedness, then it would not be right for us to promote it. As this is not a civil rights issue, it is entirely appropriate to voice concerns about it. In other words, we do not trample upon anyone’s rights by seeking to prohibit legal recognition of SSM. So, this is not a strictly political matter, but a matter of belief and theology, hence the need to spell this out in plainness.

Same-gender couples should have the legal right to seek a marriage relationship recognition from the state in the same way that heterosexual couples are able to.

But they already have this right. They can seek recognition in the same way hetero couples are able to, by marrying someone of the opposite sex. What you meant to say, or should have said, is that you believe that they should be able to seek a marriage relationship recognition from the state in a different way than hetero couples are able to. But there is no basis for saying this. Why should they have the right to do something different under the law? If you are all about marriage equality, then it ought to be in the very same way that heteros marry.

In conclusion, this all comes down to altering the definition of marriage, not in allowing people to exercise marriage rights. This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with rights.

Scriptural interpretation can be seen as very similar to this constitutional/judicial interpretation. There are different ways to approach the “original intent” question of passages that may seem quite vague when one attempts to apply them to particular circumstances. These mirror to two schools of thought on judicial interpretation:

Strict textual/contextual interpretation – which would be characterized as “fundamentalist” or “conservative”. Wherein this group focuses on the specific context of the scripture, what the author was addressing in that scripture, what did the words used mean at the time they were written, etc.

Liken the scriptures to yourself interpretation – which would be characterized as being more “liberal” with interpreting passages. Wherein this group focuses on personal circumstances and concerns, what general concepts did the author outline in that scripture, what do the words used in the translation mean to me or what can I conclude from them personally, etc.

The former is approaching scriptural intent by focusing on original context and the original conceptions the authors had in mind – the latter is approaching the same goal by focusing on an application of the general concept the authors had in mind to modern issues.

[Methods of Scriptural Interpretation]

Either way — asking me if I think homosexual behavior [regardless of the healthiness of their relationship] violates the law of chastity when we’re talking about legalizing same-sex marriage licenses in this country is about the same to me as if you’d asked me if I think D&C 89 should affect the sales of liquor, hot drinks, and tobacco — or if I think Leviticus’ verses on capital punishment should affect our legal system.

As I said — I’m not even trying to argue that God justifies same-gender relationships, but neither would I be willing to say that He condemns any-and-all of them. Same-gender couples should have the legal right to seek a marriage relationship recognition from the state in the same way that heterosexual couples are able to. So then I’d say that means we either legalize marriage licenses for them as they are right now — or downgrade everyone to civil unions.

LDS Anarchist, from your complaints about gender and pronouns, it’s very clear you are a privileged man.

When did I ever complain about gender and pronouns?

So — what I can say for certain that the scriptures say about marriages [in general, gender-inclusively] is that marriage couples should be faithful ["cleave unto none else"], committed [the no divorce teachings of Jesus], intimate ["one flesh"], emotionally fulfilling ["it is not good for adam ("human beings") to be alone"], cooperative ["we will make a companion and helpmeet for adam"], etc. These adjectives can apply to polygamous families and homosexual families — just as much as they apply to “Adam and Eve” monogamous, heterosexual ones.

Okay, so you are drawing from scriptures, but are taking them out of the context they were given in: ["cleave unto none else"] is divorced from “wife”; [the no divorce teachings of Jesus] is divorced from “wife”; ["one flesh"] is divorced from “man” and “wife”; ["it is not good for adam ("human beings") to be alone"] is transformed from a singular male man to “human beings”, (for the context of the statement shows that Adam at this point was a singular man and the Lord was referring to only him: “Let us make an help meet for the man, for it is not good that the man should be alone, therefore we will form an help meet for him.”); and ["we will make a companion and helpmeet for adam"] is divorced from its meetness, (in other words, Adam and Eve are the entire gospel pattern, thus what is meet for male Adam–female Eve–is meet for all his sons, and what is meet for female Eve–male Adam–is meet for all her daughters), and transformed into mere companionship.

Obviously, you are free to hold these beliefs, but because you continue to take everything out of the context in which it was given, I cannot appeal directly to the scriptures on this issue with you. So I will try another approach.

On the W&T blog I asked you this question:

Do you view the temple’s defined law of chastity as a condemnation of homosexual behavior?

So, here is the law of chastity, as given in the temple:

“We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain.

“To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”

Is this wording not crystal clear? How can a legally wed homosexual union not violate this law?

Okay, so Justin, I think I have stated my case. But now I’d like to know how you are backing up, scripturally, the following statements:

It may very well be that the marriage covenant ordained by God was for the purpose of joining two people together in a relationship of fidelity, cooperation, commitment, service, intimacy, fellowship, emotional fulfillment, and companionship — without needing them to be hetero- [or monogamous].

Are there any scriptures you are basing this lack of need for heterosexuality on? I can’t think of a single passage that allows one to divorce heterosexuality from sex and marriage, but maybe you’ve got something in mind?

I was basing what I wrote on my belief that if the scriptures were written by heterosexual men from patriarchal cultures in a male-privileged language — then we should not be surprised to see that:

* Marriage is always described in terms of men “taking” a wife
* Adultery is always described in terms of women breaking the wedlock with their behavior
* Etc.

I simply don’t expect the scriptures we have to tell us anything about issues relating to trans-gendered or homosexually-oriented people. That’s like expecting the scriptures to tell us about energy drinks, cell phones, or internet usage.

So — what I can say for certain that the scriptures say about marriages [in general, gender-inclusively] is that marriage couples should be faithful ["cleave unto none else"], committed [the no divorce teachings of Jesus], intimate ["one flesh"], emotionally fulfilling ["it is not good for adam ("human beings") to be alone"], cooperative ["we will make a companion and helpmeet for adam"], etc. These adjectives can apply to polygamous families and homosexual families — just as much as they apply to “Adam and Eve” monogamous, heterosexual ones.

I can admit that the scriptures assume heterosexuality in the same sense that fish assume water. But does that mean only water exists — or that the revelations were given to fish [and not to land animals]? I don’t pretend to have that answer.

I’ve said that [in my personal theology] methinks that homosexual unions will end at death and not continue on in and after the resurrection. I also think that, in our for-time arrangements, the Lord would be more concerned with people who take advantage of, abused, lie to, and cheat on their partners — than He would be with people who find emotional and sexual fulfillment in a committed, same-gender relationship. I think that what we do with our penis or our orifices [etc.] is irrelevant in a moral sense once it’s compared to how we relate to and treat other people. The law of chastity could just as easily be saying that we ought to have committed sexual ethics [no swinging relationships, no cheating, one-night stands, etc.] as saying we should all be heterosexual.

And then — given the constraints of thousands of years of male-privilege in society and male-centric focus in human languages — I’d expect we need further light and knowledge from the Lord as to how the clear the way between which one it’s to be [committed sexual ethics -- or heterosexuality only, for everyone, all the time].