Monson: Gay Marriage Fight in CA 'Is Our Gettysburg'

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

More terrible analogies.

Moreover, once it's isntitutionalized, try teaching them it's wrong. See what kind of a conundrum you find yourself in. Your child's best friend has gay parents. You teach your child gay marriage is wrong? Yeah, right. I bet you don't stand in the concourse outside the Lakers game and yap that gay lifestyle or gay marriage is "wrong."

What do we currently teach our kids about their friends who are having pre-marital sex? What do we teach them about unmarried, cohabitating parents? Why is gay marriage any different?

If you continue this aggressive tone, you can forget about the bathhouses when I am up there for the game.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is why it's fruitful to quote Brigham Young saying slavery is divinely sanctioned because of the creatonist mark of Ham doctrine.

Because we all know that we live our lives as defined by the "exception to the rule" credo.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

What do we currently teach our kids about their friends who are having pre-marital sex? What do we teach them about unmarried, cohabitating parents? Why is gay marriage any different?

If you continue this aggressive tone, you can forget about the bathhouses when I am up there for the game.

The point of legalizing gay marriage is that they have ceremonies, all the trappings of celebration and legitimizing it.

I don't teach my children premarital sex is wrong. I put it this way: Don't have a child before you're ready or you might ruin your life. Ironically, preaching against premarital sex might actually work against that message, so I don't really go there. Truthfully, I don't want to know the details of how they get to the right place. But they know my view of what that place is. I would never teach my child unmarried co-habiting people are "wrong."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm focusing on LDS Church's unique way of guilt-tripping and influencing people in ways that make thim unhappy or unfree or against their interests. Is a woman who wants to pursue a career being "selfish" by definition?

Not by definition, no.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I could spin endless scenarios where the LDS church's ultra social conservativism stresses families and therefore marriages.

I see your "endless scenarios" and raise you 10x with stories about one spouse holding strong views at variance with those of the other, be they religious, political, moral, whatever (I saw you crying in the back row when Robert Redford left Babs because he couldn't buy into her leftist crap, while Marvin Hamlisch's haunting theme song began to swell) which, without compromise from at least one spouse, will always lead to a split.

BTW, when I served as the local rabbi, a couple came to meet with me as they were contemplating divorce. The wife, who had been raised LDS but was very inactive during their courtship and early years of marriage, had found religion and became very active in our ward during the year her nonmember husband was on a carrier in the Indian Ocean. He complained that when he returned, the woman he had married was gone; she complained that he was unwilling to become more righteous and join the Church, and looked to me to preach repentance to him and support her. Bad choice. I told her I didn't blame the guy, and I'd be pretty bummed if the woman I married turned into something different while I was out. We talked about things for awhile, but the woman left feeling I'd really undercut her, while the guy felt surprised and pleased I was taking his side for the most part. I got a call recently from him telling me he had joined the church and they were getting married in the temple. I was not a particularly good, and certainly not exceptional, counselor, but I believe if a person follows gospel principles, a marriage will always be enhanced; if one wants to be a self-righteous prig, the marriage is toast. I see the LDS Church as supporting the former approach. You see it skewing more toward the latter; but then I feel the same way about the Lawyers Guild.

[SeattleUte]

DDD, here's a thought: How can you teach kids cohabitation and gay marriage are both "wrong." Take your time answering.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Let me add, Creekster, that your analogy to a habit of defacating on my porch is a terrible analogy unless you're homophobic. I don't see homosexuals as deviants or antisocial. I don't equate them with people who CHOOSE to defacate in public. Do you?

Well, if PAC says I whiffed, I guess I whiffed. It was off the top, but the point is that no one knows what their relationship will be with their children's SOs. I know one couple who can't get along with their daughter in law and so never get to see thier grandchildren, much to tehir dismay. Not a homosexual in sight at their family gatherings and yet here is this problem. SO who knows? That bridge gets crossed if and when it shows up (and was Waters being ironic when, like the bishops at the pulpit to whcih Triple referred, he says people opposing gays might be gifted gay family members? Is this a punishment? Is this implicit rejection of the prophet? Hard to say).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

DDD, here's a thought: How can you teach kids cohabitation and gay marriage are both "wrong." Take your time answering.

You say, "Kids, cohabitation and gay marriage are wrong."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

DDD, here's a thought: How can you teach kids cohabitation and gay marriage are both "wrong." Take your time answering.

That's pretty profound. I think you pulled that out of my Porch analogy bag. Tell me, do you manage to teach that polygamy and polygamous marriages are both wrong?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Your assertion was that legalizing gay marriage would result in condoning gay sex. I basically blew that one out of the water since gay sex has been condoned for years and years.

You also claimed that if gay marriage were to be legal, that the result would be a breakdown in the social construct in which we teach our children. I also provided ample examples of legalized "sins" that do not prevent us from teaching our children right vs wrong.

Will somebody throw this guy a floatie?

First, Gay sex has not been condoned for "years and years." Lawrence v. Texas was in 2003, which struck down the remaining sodomy laws. I think while the tide has turned, we're still engaged in the struggle over whether as a society we will wholeheartedly accept gay sex as legitimate and acceptable. You're from Orange County so you forget about the rest of the country, I understand that, but there are several large states with large populations who still care a great deal. But you also go to Disneyland, so living in a fantasy land comes easy for you.

Second, it's not about what I can teach my kids. It's about the support I get from society for what I teach them. Society has been offering me more support lately when it comes to smoking, but less and less when it comes to the law of chastity. Legitimizing gay marriage will further decrease that support (although, as I have acknowledged all along, that support has been crumbling, and is crumbling at increasing speeds). You trotting out the legalized vices just shows you can't read.

Pres. Monson's comparison to Prop. 8 as our Gettysburg is a hopeful analogy. The Civil War turned around on those bloody fields. I'm less optimistic. No matter what happens in California, the Church is on the losing side on this one.