LDS church chides Affirmation

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by scottie

Took me awhile to type that from my blackberry IPU, so I didn't catch your response before submitting reply.

No worries. It's all good.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm sure you do enjoy watching me lathered up. Fag.

The fact that you would use that word in this thread comfirms, to me, that you are nothing more than a homophobic ass.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Gidget

David Melson, assistant executive director of Affirmation, said his organization publicized its proposals - which include standardized training for LDS bishops on how to counsel gay and lesbian Mormons - to cut through the "bureaucracy's inertia" and get Affirmation's message to LDS President Thomas S. Monson.
"You can't just walk in and say, 'Hi, President Monson, here we are.' "

I wonder if this was really their true reason. I mean, I am sure it is very hard to get a message up to the First Presidency, but is it so hard that they would go about getting attention publicly like this? - or just impatience? and is that impatience warranted when it is obviously difficult to jump through all the hoops to get direct and focused time and answers?

Yes. Remember, the Church has officially organized to fight against Affirmation and other groups on this issue. A scheduled meeting was taken off-calendar by the church (not affirmation) to discuss the issues re: same gender attraction, citing the need to hire a family services director.

It bothers me that the First Presidency has been the signor of the letters etc. to the Stakes, and it is the First Presidency that has directed the organization in this regard. Seems to me that the meeting doesn't need the advisement of an official Family Services Director in order to open up a dialogue with Affirmation on this issue. Maybe an ultimate resolution on the requests by Affirmation will need input from that Director.

But, where a fight has begun, and overtures have been made from both sides to meet, and then one side pulls out of the talks, I don't see anything wrong with Affirmation going to the press. The church's actions seem to be trying to avoid the talk until after the vote so they won't appear weak on the stance that they have taken.

Hopefully, Affirmation's tactic will get the church back into the room to discuss these issues that the church claims are deserving of "careful attention". Careful attention (and certainly not understanding and compassion) is not what homosexual and lesbian members and non-members of the LDS church are getting from the church's efforts in California.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So all of this is definitional? Of what significance is that? Am I to believe that if society applies a definition to a word different from one the church would prefer that there is some sort of eternal consequence? Idiomatic changes can mean the difference between salvation and condemnation? That can't be true, particularly if the principles underlying the "definitions" are eternal. Regardless of how a word is defined, the eternal principle should remain constant, even if a new word has to be coined to define that eternal principle.

If this is a debate about semantics, and if that is the best reason the church can give, that is very disappointing.

I think it comes down to the common definition of marriage and the effect that legalization will have. I would guess that fifty years ago, when the average person thought about marriage, they thought of two people uniting to create a family. With the advent of birth control, this has shifted somewhat to not necessarily include children. To change the legal definition to just include homosexuals, we shift the common concept of marriage further, altogether eliminating the sacred sexual relationship and any possibility of creating a family. I do think this is a troublesome shift. I'm not sure political channels are the optimal way of preventing this shift, or if it's even possible, so I still have trouble with the church's involvement in this, but so be it--I don't live in CA.

The other coherent argument for Prop 8 is this: An essential part of marriage in our society, the only reason that it's beneficial to us as a whole, is for the rearing and protection of children. Otherwise, why should the government sponsor and subsidize it?

No, Tex, I don't think this will lead to the normalization of homosexuality. Will & Grace did much more for that than any legal measures would. Normalization and acceptance/tolerance is not necessarily a bad thing either. Homophobia, either explicit or insidious, is much more distasteful to God than an acceptance of homosexuals into our society, IMO.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I'm not saying they shouldn't receive those benefits.

I think they could get a lot more support if they listed all reasons in their argument for making gay marriage legally recognized. On the flip side, those for Prop. 8 ought to give full disclosure as well. Not wanting to pay more taxes to increase the number of those receiving spousal security benefits should be a stated reason for not wanting gay marriage legalized too.

I don't remember having to acknowledge when I got married that my wife and I wanted all of the social security benefits. In fact, I don't remember that crossing my mind at all. Why assume it's crossing gay people's minds when they say they want to get married? And why should they have to acknowledge that when I didn't?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

The fact that you would use that word in this thread comfirms, to me, that you are nothing more than a homophobic ass.

The fact that you didn't realize I was joking confirms to me that you are nothing more than a stereotypical Ute dumbass.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I don't remember having to acknowledge when I got married that my wife and I wanted all of the social security benefits. In fact, I don't remember that crossing my mind at all. Why assume it's crossing gay people's minds when they say they want to get married? And why should they have to acknowledge that when I didn't?

You make a good point. I've become too cynical in today's world of entitlements that I always look for ulterior motives.

[Rickomatic]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

The custom is not old fashioned due to its overwhelming acceptance as normal behavior today. It is normal today for hetero couples to marry. They marry for many reasons, but I would wager that the overwhelming reason for marriage amongst hetero couples is that they love each other. The fact that 50% of these marriages end in divorce does not mean that their marriages are not valued and celebrated at the time that they are married.

Gay couples love each other. Society's current custom is that the normal result of love is marriage. Gays want to be married because that is what normal people that love each other do. So it comes down to 2 things. 1. gays love each other and 2. gays want to be considered normal. How is this difficult to understand?

Very. You seem to see the world from a different vantage point than myself. Not that I feel either of us are wrong, just different observations. I truly feel that as society of man advances, the need for a document to profess each others devotion is absurd. The ceremony that is performed is observed for religious reasons. Not for civil circumstances. Figure out the legal documentation and call it a union. And then everyone gets what they want without dragging a religion into it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I think it comes down to the common definition of marriage and the effect that legalization will have. I would guess that fifty years ago, when the average person thought about marriage, they thought of two people uniting to create a family. With the advent of birth control, this has shifted somewhat to not necessarily include children. To change the legal definition to just include homosexuals, we shift the common concept of marriage further, altogether eliminating the sacred sexual relationship and any possibility of creating a family. I do think this is a troublesome shift. I'm not sure political channels are the optimal way of preventing this shift, or if it's even possible, so I still have trouble with the church's involvement in this, but so be it--I don't live in CA.

The other coherent argument for Prop 8 is this: An essential part of marriage in our society, the only reason that it's beneficial to us as a whole, is for the rearing and protection of children. Otherwise, why should the government sponsor and subsidize it?

No, Tex, I don't think this will lead to the normalization of homosexuality. Will & Grace did much more for that than any legal measures would. Normalization and acceptance/tolerance is not necessarily a bad thing either. Homophobia, either explicit or insidious, is much more distasteful to God than an acceptance of homosexuals into our society, IMO.

I don't get it. How does changing the meaning of a word alter anything about a "sacred sexual relationship?" Either it is sacred or it isn't. Surely the government doesn't have the power to alter the sacredness of something, do they? I also don't know why it is relevant that homosexuals definitely can't have children. Many married heterosexual couples can't have kids either. Should the elderly be prohibited from marrying? We don't even need to do any medical tests to know they won't have kids. What about sterile people? No marriage? People who don't like kids? Kids may be a desireable result from marriage, but they can hardly be a requirement for any marriage.

There are many reasons to promote marriage other than children. Stability and property and agency rights among them.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The fact that you didn't realize I was joking confirms to me that you are nothing more than a stereotypical Ute dumbass.

You should throw out the n word next. It will also probably be hilarious. Moron.