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

[Archaea]

My question was never about the amendment, and only UtahDan focused upon the logic.

The real reason is sympathy.

Do we have the same sympathy for other disorders?

I know the psychiatric community no longer characterizes gayness as a disorder due to political pressure, but anything which stops a person from being able to function within a male female marriage is a disorder in my book.

I don't know if sympathy is logical or not. Socal is right, the Church has anti-gay tendencies. How can the Church accommodate those tendencies? I don't think it can. I don't think it can accommodate alcoholic tendencies, wife beating tendencies, and many other nonfunctional disorders.

UtahDan is right, the only "reasons" are a contortion of compassion into justification. That is really the only thing happening.

[The_Tick]

So here is the question I have....

Do any of you (besides Robin, I feel I know where he stands) believe that homosexuality is condoned of God?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by 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.

So what if you were against church policy in 1976 and thought Blacks should receive the priesthood? In your concience wouldn't you know that all people should recieve the blessings of the priesthood?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My question was never about the amendment, and only UtahDan focused upon the logic.

The real reason is sympathy.

Do we have the same sympathy for other disorders?

I know the psychiatric community no longer characterizes gayness as a disorder due to political pressure, but anything which stops a person from being able to function within a male female marriage is a disorder in my book.

I don't know if sympathy is logical or not. Socal is right, the Church has anti-gay tendencies. How can the Church accommodate those tendencies? I don't think it can. I don't think it can accommodate alcoholic tendencies, wife beating tendencies, and many other nonfunctional disorders.

UtahDan is right, the only "reasons" are a contortion of compassion into justification. That is really the only thing happening.

I have the law on my side so that is what I am arguing. I don't blame hoya and Socal for arguing the facts. :-)

Seriously though, Archaea, I think you have hit this right on the head when you ask what the chuch could do to make gays feel "welcome." This was the question running through my mind when I was reading about the ordeal Socal's brother has gone through.

The church has never, ever, at any point since the creation condoned THE PRACTICE of homosexuality. This is for many wise reasons including (1) all sex outside of marriage is sinful (2) marriage is the only appropriate place for the use of the procreative powers (nothwithstanding JL's large container of vasoline) (3) the highest level of exaltation is reserved for married persons. It is not the church that has somehow become insensative, it is the world that has changed and come to see the church as such.

If it makes gays feel unwelcome and unloved to hear that gay sex is sinful (the feelings BTW are not, just as no unacted upon impulse that comes unbidden is sinful) then what should the church do? Stop teaching that? If that justification is right then why teach that any behavior is sinful. We could just be unitarians and and no doctrine in common at all. The bottom line is that the church is trying to teach everyone what they must do or not to do be happy and gain exaltation.

I understand that there is very little, if any, element of choice to same sex attractions. But the same is true for people who feel powerful urges to do violence, burn things, steal things, do drugs, commit adultery or any one of a million other things that the "natural man" desires to do in general or that particular individuals, thtough no fault of their own, feel particularly compelled to do. Do we tell the pyro that since he just doesn't feel whole unless he can set things on fire than he should go ahead? Or the person with anger issues to go ahead and hit his kids?

Of course these things are not all identical and there are important distinctions between them, but what they have in common is that we are taught they are wrong. Should we back away from these teachings because the world now disagrees with them?

I'm struggling to understand how the church is at fault for teaching what it has always taught. I'm sincerely curious to know from those who find fault with the church on this issue (because I fully recognize that I may be overlooking something here, as always):

1. What could the church in policy and practice to to make feel gays feel more welcome and,

2. Would these approaches work with respect to other kinds of sinful behavior.

What think ye?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

So what if you were against church policy in 1976 and thought Blacks should receive the priesthood? In your concience wouldn't you know that all people should recieve the blessings of the priesthood?

I'll tell you what my grandfather did, as I wasn't alive...

My grandfather was taught as a boy that blacks were black because they were fence sitters in the pre-existence, he was taught that they were less human than whites, he was told their loytalty to Jesus was shaky at best, and he was told all these things and more inside church during priesthood, Sunday School and sacrament. He felt highly uncomfortable with the ideas and sentiments being expressed and so he took it upon himself to read everything he could regarding blacks, priesthood, curses, marks, traditions, lineage, etc, until he came to the conclusion that the church was in error. So what did he do? He told his wife, he taught his kids compassion, he showed extreme amounts of compassion to blacks, he expressed his concerns to apostles, and ultimately he served his church in the position as a bishop, stake president, etc. Did he tell congregations he felt the church was wrong? No, but he told his pesonnal congregations he thought the church was wrong, ie, family.

Do I think the church will lift it's ban against homosexuals? No, nor do I expect the church become a bastion of acceptance. But do I think the idea of a gay couple being married ruins the family unit? Of course I don't. Do I think the church's current political position breed hate, distrust, and misunderstanding? Yes I do. Do I find it highly ironic the church has taken it's stance? I do.

As far as the Lord condoning it, that is a question I won't, nor any of us can really answer. If homosexuals are feeling real feelings of desire, love, affection who am I to say they aren't? Why would they lie about their feelings? What about transgender individuals? Are they damned simply because of physiology? These are questions that none of us never will get the answers to, regardless what the Bible says.

Does that mean we baptize them and seal them, no, but it does mean that I will love them just as much, and quite possibly show them more compassion, than the heterosexuals of this world.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

1. What could the church in policy and practice to to make feel gays feel more welcome and,

2. Would these approaches work with respect to other kinds of sinful behavior.

What think ye?

Leave it at what they thought 5 years ago...

You can be gay, but if you want to be a part of our practicing religion, we require that you don't practice.

Why an emphasis is placed on homosexualism makes very little sense, especially since the percentage of heterosexuals ruining, and attacking marriage is far greater than the 2% of the population that is participating in homosexual activities.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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

What is depressing about pain? It lets us know we're alive, it strengthens us.

The Molly Mormon approach of "la-la-la" makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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?

Smart ass. I feel no kinship. I'm an empirical being, not normally mystical. I have no clairvoyance, never had one of those "ooh, ahh" experiences. My spiritual experiences are far more subtle.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

Gay sex is harmful to society. CDC evidence will show that gay sex and drug user sex increases STDs. Proponents of gayness suggest without evidence again that gays will marry in large numbers so as to reverse the STD trend. There is no evidence any where in the world to support that. I submit won't marry in large numbers because that runs counter to gay life, but rather it is just a power play between parties. And if it is a power play between moral conservatives and gays, one is mor logical than the other.

Secondly, there is, as shown by SLC's efforts to pay for gay partners, a real financial cost to recognizing gay unions. Nobody, but a true financial conservative, cares about this. And you're likely to throw out a red herring, "well, if you really cared, you would be against ..." I probably am against increased government expenses.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

This is the Ernoznick argument. Hey, "he was speeding too." "You can't just stop me."

IOW, why isn't the Church doing all things for all peoples. If you don't recognize the fallacy of that argument and the reasoning behind Ernoznick, then reread Con law.

[tooblue]

This post was meant to respond to Socal's post ...

On a very personal level I understand and empathize with your compassion, your mistrust, your sadness, your indignation and the overwhelming sense of despair you so aptly convey on behalf of your brother.

I do not disagree that many in the church have great difficulty showing love and respect for fellow children of our Father in Heaven who are not merely homosexual, but individuals of great worth to families and society in general.

For me this issue is not about harming or punishing homosexuals, this issue is about protecting the family. I choose to ascribe my understanding of what constitutes a family to the following descriptive words taken from The Family: A Proclamation …

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity …

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. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

It is a reality that homosexual marriage can in no way or in any form, compare or compete with the above stated ideal. Such an ideal has existed since the introduction of our species on this planet and is the cornerstone of our society. There is no viable substitute. The very nature of human sexuality dictates the above stated model is the norm, and anything contrary to it is abnormal. It is beyond arrogant for any person to contend that we as a society can somehow transcend this truth.

[tooblue]

No, not in any shape or form ... if you would like me to explain my feelings and thoughts I will (and have) in a less public forum.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What is depressing about pain? It lets us know we're alive, it strengthens us.

The Molly Mormon approach of "la-la-la" makes no sense to me.

Doesn't joy accomplish the same thing? Given your earlier quote about how sex only causes pain, I would think, coupled with this statement, you would be a strong proponent of it!

Originally Posted by archaea

Smart ass. I feel no kinship. I'm an empirical being, not normally mystical. I have no clairvoyance, never had one of those "ooh, ahh" experiences. My spiritual experiences are far more subtle.

Who says you need to "feel" a kinship? Isn't it enough to know that there is a kinship?

Originally Posted by archaea

Gay sex is harmful to society. CDC evidence will show that gay sex and drug user sex increases STDs. Proponents of gayness suggest without evidence again that gays will marry in large numbers so as to reverse the STD trend. There is no evidence any where in the world to support that. I submit won't marry in large numbers because that runs counter to gay life, but rather it is just a power play between parties. And if it is a power play between moral conservatives and gays, one is mor logical than the other.

Secondly, there is, as shown by SLC's efforts to pay for gay partners, a real financial cost to recognizing gay unions. Nobody, but a true financial conservative, cares about this. And you're likely to throw out a red herring, "well, if you really cared, you would be against ..." I probably am against increased government expenses.

Who is promoting unadulterated gay sex here? Nobody. The ACT of homosexual sex may cause harm to society where it is performed recklessly. This is equally true of heterosexual sex. It is equally true of a lot of other actions as well. Yet your hatred of homosexuality exceeds that of the other actions which are just as detrimental.

You claim that there is no evidence that gay marriage would stop harm to society while simultaneously working to ban gay marriage. Hard to compile evidence in that environment, isn't it? Despite my joke about your odd stance, there is a lot of evidence out there on this issue. Existing evidence DOES show that gay married couples tend to become monogamous, at least for the duration of that marriage. Studies also show they are no more likely to cheat than a heterosexual is once married. If societal benefit is what we are talking about here (which you have listed in terms of limiting the spread of disease) then gay marriage presumably would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by archaea

This is the Ernoznick argument. Hey, "he was speeding too." "You can't just stop me."

I have no idea who Ernoznick is, but I can say that my argument here isn't analagous to your speeding argument. What would be analagous is saying, hey, I was only going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit. Why are you only stopping those of us who are going 5 miles an hour over but doing nothing to stop those who are going 30 miles an hour over while drunk?

Gay marriage involves a subset of a subset of people. Its impact on the family is virtually nil. Divorce, alcohol abuse, pre-marital sex, are all far more detrimental to the family than gay marriage. In fact, so are the media images portraying sex and how loose we can be in family arrangements. Perhaps those should be unconstitutional?

If you want to legislate something dealing with families, why start with something that would have such a tiny impact anyways? Why not start with a real issue? I think the answer deals with a bigotry towards homosexuals.