Question about the Proclamation

[TripletDaddy]

Another thing popping into my head during our long drive home from Utah....an angle that I have not yet personally heard discussed (although perhaps it is already old news)...

Is it possible that the Proclamation is, indeed, 100% inspired and accurate....but that we (as a Church) are currently misinterpreting it?

I keep going over it, and frankly, I can definitely see an argument for the anti-gay position, but I can also see an argument that the Proclamation does not exclude gays or gay marriage.

The passage in question and my brief thoughts on each clause:

1. The family is ordained of God. (since "family" has yet to be defined, this statement is not prohibitive nor permissive of gay marriage).

2. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. (this one is pretty clear...or at least it seems to be. However, upon further reflection, why does this exclude gay marriage? Heterosexual marriage will continue to exist and procreation will also continue. God's eternal plan can carry on largely unaffected. The heterosexuals that were going to marry prior to gay marriage legislation are still going to get married after gay marriage legislation. While gays cannot procreate, their being married does not preclude the essential heterosexual element of God's eternal plan).

3. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony (gays will never bear children as a result of their union, so I am unclear as to how this phrase applies to homosexuals and homosexual marriage. It is a moot point.)

4. and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. (given that gays cannot birth their own children, their main option is to adopt. Focusing solely on that pool of available children that are not going to be adopted by heterosexuals, is the Church's implicit stance that it is better for children to go unadopted for 18 years than to be adopted by a loving gay couple? Admittedly, there is also the issue of artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood.)

5. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. (agreed...this would also include compassion, love, etc...some of which is listed in the next clause)

6. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. (agreed again, but this does not preclude gay marriage.)

7. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. (what about single parent LDS and non-LDS homes? Why is that situation better than a loving and committed gay couple?)

8. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (if the root of a healthy relationship is the common yoke shared by an equal partnership, then again, why can't gay marriage be included?)

9. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed. ("other circumstance"....what are they? couldn't gay marriage be included in that exception clause?)

The more I read the Proclamation, the more I wonder whether it is a less exclusive and more inclusive document than we currently understand it to be.

Thoughts, comments, and even derision is fine. I am really looking for some sort of clarifying explanation on this difficult issue, so I won't reject any feedback, positive or negative.