People are losing temple recs over gay marriage.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Question for you, Archea:

Suppose someone does not believe in gay marriage but believes that a constitutional ammendment is a bad idea. Would you advocate denying a person in this situation a recommend?

No.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Promoting gay unions shows a fundamental disbelief in LDS epistemology.

And working for, represnting, or owning a business that provides services such as: alcohol, porn, gambling, tobacco, etc, is not?

I don't get the rationale used to reach this conclusion.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I think the Church teaches people not to drink beer, and the fact that one is never questioned as to whether or not they sell alcohol is probably an indicator that the word of wisdom is not quite the cornerstone you are extending it to be. What seems important to the LDS Church is how I treat my body.

You are missing the point, probably because I am not articulating it very well.

I am simply trying to say that support of gay marriage, or belonging to a group that advocated gay marriage, is no different than belonging or working for a company or group that advocates alcohol, sex, tobacco, gambling, lewdness.

Obviously working for a casino, a strip club, a bar, etc, does not disqualify a candidate for entrance into the temple, why should advocating gay marriage disqualify a person?

To your second paragraph, I would assume the candidate made a fuss during the interview, or is not portraying the entire story with candidness and honesty.

[Archaea]

"Providing porn" is a loaded statement. Marrriott does not provide porn, they simply don't block it in the entertainment options, at least that's how I understand it.

Substances provided as expected in business, which in one dispensation are allowable and in another are not, don't offend me.

I have friends who drink, probably none who smoke as I can't stand the stuff. I even have friends in gay unions, but none active in gay rights.

I see it perfectly pragmatic and consistent.

The core doctrines are belief in God, Christ, the Atonement, the Restoration, the BoM, baptism, and the temple, especially the marriage union.

All else is peripheral.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

"Providing porn" is a loaded statement. Marrriott does not provide porn, they simply don't block it in the entertainment options, at least that's how I understand it.

Let's not kid ourselves. The porn doesn't just magically appear in the hotel rooms. Marriott contracts with a company to provide the porn on a pay-per-view basis. It requires special equipment for advertisement, broadcast, and billing. The company provides a percentage of the take to Marriott. It is highly profitable for Marriott.

[Archaea]

Obviously if I were in a position I would oppose it, but I suppose if I were only a five percent shareholder, my vote might not sway everyone. And apparently have much more expertise in porn than I so I'll defer to your greater expertise.

I haven't seen the porn "provided", and I've stayed at Marriott. I see a big difference between that and the local porn only shop down the road.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

And working for, represnting, or owning a business that provides services such as: alcohol, porn, gambling, tobacco, etc, is not?

I don't get the rationale used to reach this conclusion.

I think the biggest difference to note in this discussion is the idea of providing something vs. supporting something. A resturant owner may provide alcohol to his or her patrons for a price, assuming they meet the age requirement. That doesn't mean he supports drinking. For a resturant owner to be considered as "supportive" of something that goes against church teachings, he would have to provide the alcohol for free..."Tuesday Nights, Missionaries Drink For Free!"

In the marriots case, you could use the same analogy. They would have to be providing the pornography for free and encouraging people to partake. They don't do that. People have to seek it out.

Gay marraige is against the fundamental teachings of the church and on top of that, the First Presidency has issued statements as to where exactly the church comes down on this issue. They are against gay marraige...supporting and advocating for an amendment to the contrary would seemingly fall under the catagory "against church teachings."

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I haven't seen the porn "provided", and I've stayed at Marriott. I see a big difference between that and the local porn only shop down the road.

I see it as worse.

Let's not kid ourselves, hotels provide porn and they are as deep in the porn industry as the dude who sells porn in a porn only shop.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And apparently have much more expertise in porn than I so I'll defer to your greater expertise.

LOL. Good one.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I haven't seen the porn "provided", and I've stayed at Marriott. I see a big difference between that and the local porn only shop down the road.

Yeah, the difference is that Marriott's version of porn is far more accessible than the porn shop's and is more profitable. Hotel porn is a massive industry.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

I think the biggest difference to note in this discussion is the idea of providing something vs. supporting something. A resturant owner may provide alcohol to his or her patrons for a price, assuming they meet the age requirement. That doesn't mean he supports drinking. For a resturant owner to be considered as "supportive" of something that goes against church teachings, he would have to provide the alcohol for free..."Tuesday Nights, Missionaries Drink For Free!"

In the marriots case, you could use the same analogy. They would have to be providing the pornography for free and encouraging people to partake. They don't do that. People have to seek it out.

Gay marraige is against the fundamental teachings of the church and on top of that, the First Presidency has issued statements as to where exactly the church comes down on this issue. They are against gay marraige...supporting and advocating for an amendment to the contrary would seemingly fall under the catagory "against church teachings."

Wow, how people twist things to fit their paradigms.

Somehow selling, profitting, and advertising alcohol, tobacco, porn is not providing for and encouraging certain industries. Somehow the topic of du jour of the past priesthood conferences is not as official as the announcement made by the brethren regarding gay marriage.

I think more than anything it shows that we are so miseducated about the ills of homosexuality, that so afraid of homosexuals, that we push aside all reason and look on the sinners, and not the sin.

Practicing homosexualism according to LDS dogma will prevent someone from the celestial kingdom just as much as drinking alcohol.