I'm not sure I can continue to support an organization that allows one sin to be treated one way (allowing parents who fornicate to have their children baptized) but not another.
That is another thing I just thought of. If a male and female are cohabiting together and not married, the church will allow their children to be baptized before 18 but not a homosexual partner.
It's the inconsistencies that bother me. Especially when the inconsistencies are based on bigotry.
I just wanted to comment on the bold statement that has been mentioned a few times in this thread.
This statement in my experience is not true, that children of a male and female living together are allowed to be baptized without thought of the family situation. This goes for many of the other family situations that exist, that of a child with both parents that are not members of the LDS church, one parent is a member while the other parent is not, or even both parents are members but do not attend regularly or often.
In all of these situations my understanding is that there would have to be special permission given at some level, possibly the Stake President or higher, in order to get approval for baptism.
The reasoning behind this has less to do with sins of parents as it does of having a stable and supportive environment for the child that wants to be baptized into the church. If there is not a supportive home environment to being a member of the church and living by the teachings, then it is most likely not the best time to be baptized. It’s very very hard for children to be active members of the church without parent and family support.
This gets to the portion of the issue where the parents are currently not living in a way to be in line with the LDS church teachings. I have seen parents be required to be married in order to join the church, but that is usually when the parents are joining as well. In my opinion this has more to do with keeping families strong whether in or out of the church and giving people the best opportunity to succeed at living the teachings than “meting out punishment”.
I have seen delays in children being baptized many times for parents to make changes before a child is allowed to be baptized. What is the point of baptizing a child if the odds are really high in favor of the child not having support to live the LDS doctrine? Baptism is a gateway to a way of life, it’s not the end of any road, but a beginning.
This is not bigotry, this is policy enacted to protect people.
It is better to not be baptized, than to be baptized knowing full well there is little chance that person will be able to live up to the covenants made at that baptism. When you are baptized, you promise certain things, and children need the support of parents and families in order to keep those covenants.
I hope my rambling ideas/post makes even half the points I intended to make even if not as well worded as I would like.
