A current statement

[Solon]

I predict that in 40 years, this statement will be tossed around like other old GA statements. We'll all shake our heads and chuckle uncomfortably at how narrow sighted those barbarians were in the early 2000s, when Oaks compared same-gender-attraction to a physical disability like paralysis or mental impairment.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...der-attraction

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: [. . .] Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope [as a heterosexual has of ever meeting a mate and getting married].

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

[Archaea]

maybe. I don't see the Church ever allowing gays to marry though they may allow them more leeway in the future.

Given what they know today, that argument doesn't particularly offend unless you take offense to the physical conditions with the emotional conditions. Actually though, it makes it sound as if the leaders are admitting that homosexuality is the result of physiological causes, not sin. So, wouldn't you actually consider that statement an improvement over past statements?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

maybe. I don't see the Church ever allowing gays to marry though they may allow them more leeway in the future.

Given what they know today, that argument doesn't particularly offend unless you take offense to the physical conditions with the emotional conditions. Actually though, it makes it sound as if the leaders are admitting that homosexuality is the result of physiological causes, not sin. So, wouldn't you actually consider that statement an improvement over past statements?

You're right that this is the logical extension of their argument. It's a bad argument. I think it's pretty degrading to both homosexuals and people with real disabilities. It's akin to the old views that contend that the black race and women are mentally inferior to white men.