Intellectually, I'll pose the question to you LDS liberals and the few apostates here

[Archaea]

Unless you're gay yourself, why the affinity for gayness and its politics?

Emotionally, it means nothing to me. I have no family who is gay; of course, I have almost no family whatsoever, so familial bonds are almost unknown. What bonds my extended family has is completely dysfunctional. I know of maybe one successful family unit in my entire extended family.

In short sum, people have affinity because (a) it involves sex and everybody should be able to get his rocks off [Seattle even went so far as to attack me ad hominenally, saying I was cruel for not wanting gay men to ejaculate], (b) it arises "naturally" so God must have a plan for it, and (c) our leaders, the scriptures and any discussion is uninspired as to it, and (d) let's just people do whatever they please with whatever health consequences arise and costs of any social activities should never be questioned because it involves sex.

These are not very persuasive to me.

As I see it we are receive our personal pain. Most of life is painful. Sometimes, not seeking sympathy and if I got it, I would punch you in the nose, everything we encounter is painful. About the only reason for joy involves our kids, our jobs and sometimes athletics or religious joy, but these are momentary only to be connected in the hereafter. For the most part, there is simply tremendous pain. It is why athletics relieves emotional pain because it focuses upon physical pain as opposed to emotional, although endurance events are also mental.

So for people to legitimize gayness by virtue of sympathy for the pain, isn't all life pain with only brief respites of joy?

I just cannot relate. And the arguments built by gay sympathizers such as yourselves does not connect logically. It includes so many unprovable assumptions and that in of itself is illogical.

I guess I will never understand, especially LDS liberals. Apostates will believe whatever they choose, as they are freed from any connection to LDS theology, epistomology or etymology. It almost seems as if LDS liberals really don't believe God has revealed anything, only that the LDS Church functions as an appropriate social organization. If that is all I believed the LDS church to be, I wouldn't be involved. It costs too much for too little.

Can anybody make philosophically rational argument unrelated to the words "fair", or "God wouldn't make somebody suffer if it weren't permissible", or "nobody would wish that upon themselves so it must be normal". Those are simply ciruitous logic without a premise, deduction and conclusion. The logic is nonexistent.

Pain is a necessary, inescapable part of life. Sex invokes pain and rarely joy. Without excrutiating pain, there is no growth.

Work a muscle, you must agonize it and then allow it to heal and start over again.

Same with spiritual growth, emotional and intellectual.

[UtahDan]

1. I think that most of the folks here who seem to advocate on gay issues want gay people to be happy and don't see any way for that to occur other than for them to act on the urges they have. They see it as a human issue and feel compassion for those who, if not for gay relationships, might have very lonely existences. They see those who stand in the way of it, including the church, as just being arbitray, cruel and lacking in compassion. IMO, this is one of the more seductive "philosophies of men" of our day because it twists the compassion people feel for gays (rightly, it is an impossibly difficult affliction) into a disbelief in the words of the prophets who have said unequivocally that these relationships are antithetical to the plan of happiness. The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. I can think of no better example.

2. You have a very dark view of the prospects of being happy in this life. I wonder what has beaten you down so much to make you feel this way.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Sex invokes pain and rarely joy.

Arch, I think maybe you're doing it wrong.

[All-American]

I would probably be mildly against the amendment, had church leaders not spoken out against it. They obviously feel very strongly that the amendment is necessary to protect the family. As long as I believe they are what they say they are, that's an awfully hard thing to shrug off.

I'm not saying "The prophet has spoken and the discussion has ended;" rather, my thinking has been very much altered by the input they have contributed.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Before the the Church came out I really didn't care. As far as what the government considers a marriage, I don't see how allowing gays, polys, etc... could make things any worse than they are now. The ways people in our society enter into, fail to honor, and quickly dissolve marriages are, at least in my mind, just as offensive to God as letting two sodomites share a tax return. Just MHO.

To clarify... I didn't care. I wasn't for or against. If anything I was kind of for the ammendment but that's because I'm greedy and like the fact that all of the DINK (double income no kids) gay couples out there have to pay more taxes than me *evil laugh [/muahahahahahaahaa].

Now that the leaders of the church have spoken out so clearly on the matter I feel that my time on the fence is over. Perhaps if I had some deep passion about this subject I might be able to justify a personal "wrestle" with what the bretheren have said. However, since I wasn't really hot or cold I guess I will err on the side of the Church.

If I'm wrong... At least I'll be in good company...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Unless you're gay yourself, why the affinity for gayness and its politics?

Emotionally, it means nothing to me. I have no family who is gay; of course, I have almost no family whatsoever, so familial bonds are almost unknown. What bonds my extended family has is completely dysfunctional. I know of maybe one successful family unit in my entire extended family.

In short sum, people have affinity because (a) it involves sex and everybody should be able to get his rocks off [Seattle even went so far as to attack me ad hominenally, saying I was cruel for not wanting gay men to ejaculate], (b) it arises "naturally" so God must have a plan for it, and (c) our leaders, the scriptures and any discussion is uninspired as to it, and (d) let's just people do whatever they please with whatever health consequences arise and costs of any social activities should never be questioned because it involves sex.

These are not very persuasive to me.

As I see it we are receive our personal pain. Most of life is painful. Sometimes, not seeking sympathy and if I got it, I would punch you in the nose, everything we encounter is painful. About the only reason for joy involves our kids, our jobs and sometimes athletics or religious joy, but these are momentary only to be connected in the hereafter. For the most part, there is simply tremendous pain. It is why athletics relieves emotional pain because it focuses upon physical pain as opposed to emotional, although endurance events are also mental.

So for people to legitimize gayness by virtue of sympathy for the pain, isn't all life pain with only brief respites of joy?

I just cannot relate. And the arguments built by gay sympathizers such as yourselves does not connect logically. It includes so many unprovable assumptions and that in of itself is illogical.

I guess I will never understand, especially LDS liberals. Apostates will believe whatever they choose, as they are freed from any connection to LDS theology, epistomology or etymology. It almost seems as if LDS liberals really don't believe God has revealed anything, only that the LDS Church functions as an appropriate social organization. If that is all I believed the LDS church to be, I wouldn't be involved. It costs too much for too little.

Can anybody make philosophically rational argument unrelated to the words "fair", or "God wouldn't make somebody suffer if it weren't permissible", or "nobody would wish that upon themselves so it must be normal". Those are simply ciruitous logic without a premise, deduction and conclusion. The logic is nonexistent.

Pain is a necessary, inescapable part of life. Sex invokes pain and rarely joy. Without excrutiating pain, there is no growth.

Work a muscle, you must agonize it and then allow it to heal and start over again.

Same with spiritual growth, emotional and intellectual.

Can you at least TRY to say one happy thing in any of your posts? They are all so darned depressing.

In terms of why I support homosexuals as people (which doesn't involve condoning the activity), it is precisely because they ARE family. As a supposed LDS follower, I am a bit shocked to hear you suggest that because you don't have a direct blood tie to homosexuals, you have no emotional investment in helping them. Perhaps you were unaware that we are all brothers and sisters?

Originally Posted by Archaea

Emotionally, it means nothing to me. I have no family who is gay; of course, I have almost no family whatsoever, so familial bonds are almost unknown. What bonds my extended family has is completely dysfunctional. I know of maybe one successful family unit in my entire extended family.

If you don't care about homosexuals because you have no emotional bond to them, I suppose this statement could be equally construed to suggest you don't care about the family unit since you apparently have no emotional bonds there either.

I think most LDS people can start with the premise that homosexuality is a sin. The next question is, "what do we do about it?" Should we legislate that homosexuality is illegal? Should we legislate that gay marriage is impermissible? Does stopping gay marriage do anything to stop the sinful conduct?

In the realm of "what to do about it," I differ sharply from the church. I don't think you can present a logical argument (which necessarily means we don't include religious references in the argument) that says homosexual marriage is harmful to families in general. Because I believe a bedrock principle of our government is the separation of church and state, if you can't give me an argument that doesn't wholly rely on religious belief, then I can't accept that it is an appropriate thing for the government to be involved in.

I also don't understand why, if protecting the family is what the church is trying to accomplish, divorce shouldn't be unconstitutional, or alcohol use, or pre-marital sex, or any other number of things that are currently far more detrimental to families than homosexual marriage.

Your family has no homosexuals, and you claim it is falling apart. Could it be there is something else we should all be focusing our religious efforts on?

[SoCalCoug]

Here are my thoughts:

When the letter from the first presidency about the gay marriage amendment was read from the pulpit, it just happened to be on the Sunday my entire family was together at my parents' ward for my youngest brother's mission report. This included my gay brother, who was at church for the first time in years. I'm sure he felt very welcome.

In my view, there is way too much of "hating the sin" and very little "loving the sinner" in the church. Prejudices against homsexuality among church members are a large part of what led my brother to deny the feelings he was having, and never discuss them with family or church leaders when he first started struggling with them. Had he done so, his situation might be different now. Instead, he struggled with his homosexuality for years in silence, and drifted farther and farther away from the gospel spiritually, until when he finally admitted that he was gay, he already felt distanced from the church and the church members. By the time he admitted to himself that he was gay, it didn't make a lot of sense for him to fight to come closer to a church which constantly told him that what he was feeling was a sin, and that he was a sinner.

This is someone who was an A.P. on his mission, taught gospel doctrine with me in our single's ward, and was called to be an Elder's Quorum President, even as he was coming to the realization that he is homosexual, and was struggling with his testimony because of that. Although he tended to get in more trouble than me, and was a little rebellious at times, he was far from a bad kid growing up.

He dated lots of girls, and even came close to being engaged on a couple of occasions. Being gay was definitely not a choice he made. People in the church seem to be so convinced that being gay is a result of sins you committed, or of choices you have made. Therefore, homosexuals are sinners. How does someone struggling with the discovery that they are gay feel welcome in the church, or feel grateful for a gospel that seems to say he is a bad person for feeling how he does? My brother's a year younger than me, and we grew up together. I know him better than I know anyone else in the world, and I know that his being gay is not the result of any choices he made in his life.

So now here he is, realizing that he is gay. He is told through the church that he is a sinner, he is a pervert, and he will never have the opportunity to get married and have a family, things that are necessary for eternal life. Some of you guys are single adults - you know how hard it is in family wards when you're single. Add the fact that he's gay and can you really blame him for not staying active in the church?

Rationalize as you will, you have to admit that the church is anti-gay. Homosexuals simply are not welcome in the LDS community. The "hate the sin but love the sinner" philosophy is pure bullshit in practice. I understand the principle, and have no problems with it. In practice, however, it provides an excuse for church members to discriminate against homosexuals and drive even those who want to be a part of the church away from it. There is simply a growing hatred among church members for homosexuals, and I think it's a destructive thing. Why would anyone work to be a part of a church that hates them?

The gay marriage amendment is nothing more than a desparate attempt by the Republican party to galvanize its conservative base, which has been damaged by the ineptness of the Bush administration. The proponents in the government know it will never pass. It's an election-year grandstanding attempt, and nothing more. It's a way to feed on the prejudices and hatred of the religious conservatives, and demonize the "liberal" democratic party.

I will vote for the amendment because my church leaders have (in a thinly-veiled manner) instructed me to do so. On a legal basis, I think the proposal is misguided, and I think it emphasizes that the principles behind it are contrary to the Constitution. I think it's ironic that it is the Republican party that is so gung-ho about changing the Constitution in this regard. It's completely self-serving and political, and it will change nothing, other than to galvanize the conservatives in the country more strongly against homosexuals.

As things like this continue, it will be more and more difficult to keep church members struggling with homosexuality in the church. If that's what you want, I hope you someday answer to them for it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I will vote for the amendment because my church leaders have (in a thinly-veiled manner) instructed me to do so. On a legal basis, I think the proposal is misguided, and I think it emphasizes that the principles behind it are contrary to the Constitution.

SoCal... I was SOO with you up to this point.

If you fail to obey your CONSCIENCE, no matter what the church leaders say, then you have sinned. God gave you a conscience. It is a tool directly from GOD. No middle man. It is the tool God gave you to make choices like this. If, after prayer and thoughtful consideration, the prophets and everyone else still faill to persuade your conscience to the merits of the case, then it is your DUTY to yourself and to your God to obey the dictates of your CONSCIENCE. God gave it to you for a reason. If you ignore it, in God's eyes, you will be held responsible.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Here are my thoughts:

When the letter from the first presidency about the gay marriage amendment was read from the pulpit, it just happened to be on the Sunday my entire family was together at my parents' ward for my youngest brother's mission report. This included my gay brother, who was at church for the first time in years. I'm sure he felt very welcome.

In my view, there is way too much of "hating the sin" and very little "loving the sinner" in the church. Prejudices against homsexuality among church members are a large part of what led my brother to deny the feelings he was having, and never discuss them with family or church leaders when he first started struggling with them. Had he done so, his situation might be different now. Instead, he struggled with his homosexuality for years in silence, and drifted farther and farther away from the gospel spiritually, until when he finally admitted that he was gay, he already felt distanced from the church and the church members. By the time he admitted to himself that he was gay, it didn't make a lot of sense for him to fight to come closer to a church which constantly told him that what he was feeling was a sin, and that he was a sinner.

This is someone who was an A.P. on his mission, taught gospel doctrine with me in our single's ward, and was called to be an Elder's Quorum President, even as he was coming to the realization that he is homosexual, and was struggling with his testimony because of that. Although he tended to get in more trouble than me, and was a little rebellious at times, he was far from a bad kid growing up.

He dated lots of girls, and even came close to being engaged on a couple of occasions. Being gay was definitely not a choice he made. People in the church seem to be so convinced that being gay is a result of sins you committed, or of choices you have made. Therefore, homosexuals are sinners. How does someone struggling with the discovery that they are gay feel welcome in the church, or feel grateful for a gospel that seems to say he is a bad person for feeling how he does? My brother's a year younger than me, and we grew up together. I know him better than I know anyone else in the world, and I know that his being gay is not the result of any choices he made in his life.

So now here he is, realizing that he is gay. He is told through the church that he is a sinner, he is a pervert, and he will never have the opportunity to get married and have a family, things that are necessary for eternal life. Some of you guys are single adults - you know how hard it is in family wards when you're single. Add the fact that he's gay and can you really blame him for not staying active in the church?

Rationalize as you will, you have to admit that the church is anti-gay. Homosexuals simply are not welcome in the LDS community. The "hate the sin but love the sinner" philosophy is pure bullshit in practice. I understand the principle, and have no problems with it. In practice, however, it provides an excuse for church members to discriminate against homosexuals and drive even those who want to be a part of the church away from it. There is simply a growing hatred among church members for homosexuals, and I think it's a destructive thing. Why would anyone work to be a part of a church that hates them?

The gay marriage amendment is nothing more than a desparate attempt by the Republican party to galvanize its conservative base, which has been damaged by the ineptness of the Bush administration. The proponents in the government know it will never pass. It's an election-year grandstanding attempt, and nothing more. It's a way to feed on the prejudices and hatred of the religious conservatives, and demonize the "liberal" democratic party.

I will vote for the amendment because my church leaders have (in a thinly-veiled manner) instructed me to do so. On a legal basis, I think the proposal is misguided, and I think it emphasizes that the principles behind it are contrary to the Constitution. I think it's ironic that it is the Republican party that is so gung-ho about changing the Constitution in this regard. It's completely self-serving and political, and it will change nothing, other than to galvanize the conservatives in the country more strongly against homosexuals.

As things like this continue, it will be more and more difficult to keep church members struggling with homosexuality in the church. If that's what you want, I hope you someday answer to them for it.

An EXCELLENT post.

[fusnik11]

Wow, Socal, an excellent post, I couldn't have said it better myself.

As for what Robin said, I think he is actually quite accurate. It's been stated by church leader's past, that they aren't always right and that we are given reason, conscious, personal feelings to decide what is best for us individually. If one feels the amendment is wrong on any level, whether it be a human rights issue, or an issue of legality, it is our duty to express the way we feel through the political process.