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

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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?

Ernoznick is a Con law case that I remember from the Gunther book more than twenty years. It was in the Con law section under Due Process and Equal Protection repudiating the argument that selective enforcement was unconstitutional.

The Church can only advocate what one can do. The anti-gay legislation is doable. The other stuff, not that I agree or disagree, is NOT doable. You know that and that is why the Church won't act upon battles already lost. Perhaps this one is lost as well.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Gay marriage involves a subset of a subset of people. Its impact on the family is virtually nil.

You don't know that, only that it will only involve a small number of people but you are not wise or omniscient enough, despite having attended Georgetown, to know what the ramifications will be.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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?

This is a red herring. First, unconstitutionalizing them, is not doable. Second, are you saying the Church is NOT against these things? If so, you must be attending a different church than I.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

Do the doable. We can't even get by the easy, minor stuff. That's why families are doomed. The big stuff, divorce, abuse, deprivation, selfishness, substance abuse, will never be addressed politically and probably not socially.

"Bigotry toward gays" card. Pulling out your nukes are you. Anybody who doesn't bf another guy is a bigot. Great intellectual discussion.

The Church can only do incremental assaults, if it can do anything.

In a world where American Idol is a big seller, how can any of the virtues of the Gospel be sold? I don't see it. And our missionary efforts in the US are failing.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

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.

When did that change?

Originally Posted by fusnik11

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.

So basically you are saying that while it is legitimate for the church to be interested in this issue, there are other more important issues to focus on in your opinion? I don't think there is anything amiss in thinking that, other than I would just add the grain of salt that church leadership is better situated to know what is harming the collective than you or I are, that is, they have access to real data where our data is anecotal.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

When did that change?

It changed when the church started getting involved politically. The prior church stance was one of understanding based in firm doctrine, we understand you might struggle, you are welcome, but if you practice, you can't practice here. The current stance with the church throwing it's weight behind a foolish amendment, and the church's announcement that the family is under attack screams of anti-homosexualism and bigotry. Merely five years they welcomed homosexuals, now we are falling for political tricks and saying that 1% of the homosexuals who want to get married are actually attacking the family. Seems quite extreme if you ask me.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't think there is anything amiss in thinking that, other than I would just add the grain of salt that church leadership is better situated to know what is harming the collective than you or I are, that is, they have access to real data where our data is anecotal.

What real data does the church leadership have access to that you or I don't?

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do the doable. We can't even get by the easy, minor stuff. That's why families are doomed. The big stuff, divorce, abuse, deprivation, selfishness, substance abuse, will never be addressed politically and probably not socially.

In a world where American Idol is a big seller, how can any of the virtues of the Gospel be sold? I don't see it. And our missionary efforts in the US are failing.

I'm glad you said that and used the word doable.....

Could you imagine if the church rallied it's members around an idea that would actually make a difference in this world? Like what if the church said, the family is being attacked, will the membership please dedicate their time over the next couple of months to helping out a woman's shelter to help with the families that are falling apart. Or what if the church read over the pulpit, we want you to contact your local goverment officials to volunteer your services in an inner city school this week.

Those are doable things that increase the value of the family, the church membership, and encourage love and compassion instead of strong arming its membership into thinking that a dude and a dude getting hitched is attacking the family.....

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

What real data does the church leadership have access to that you or I don't?

A lot. BYU, as well as some USU and UU, departments conduct studies at the request of the Church. These are often not disclosed to the public. The sociology department, some of which I have read, are fascinating.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I'm glad you said that and used the word doable.....

Could you imagine if the church rallied it's members around an idea that would actually make a difference in this world? Like what if the church said, the family is being attacked, will the membership please dedicate their time over the next couple of months to helping out a woman's shelter to help with the families that are falling apart. Or what if the church read over the pulpit, we want you to contact your local goverment officials to volunteer your services in an inner city school this week.

Those are doable things that increase the value of the family, the church membership, and encourage love and compassion instead of strong arming its membership into thinking that a dude and a dude getting hitched is attacking the family.....

Huh. A family shelter? I don't fault people for helping out there, but how does the go to prevention. Prevention is more important than addressing needs once things have gone to oblivion.

Prevention is family prayer, exercise, nutrition, catastrophe preparation, scriptural indoctrination, teaching principles, earning a decent income. The Good Samaritan acts are important but really won't strengthen the family. They are charitable survival acts.

The world focuses upon compassion, as do you, without understanding the basis in compassion.

The Church is mostly a teaching organization with the essential ordinances and authority for salvation and exaltation. It will never have the resources to be all things for all people and its charitable compassionate service is actually very limited. We will never be the Red Cross. It is cheaper to educate, than to deliver services.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

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?

I strongly disagree with this statement. Never in the history of this church has there been more sympathy for homosexuals among its membership than there is at this time. That might not be saying much, but I don't think one can honestly say that there is a "growing" hatred.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I strongly disagree with this statement. Never in the history of this church has there been more sympathy for homosexuals among its membership than there is at this time. That might not be saying much, but I don't think one can honestly say that there is a "growing" hatred.

I can understand what both of you are saying. On the one hand, I think there IS more sypathy and understanding. A few years ago I was talking to my dad about homosexuals I know, and he acted surprised that we would be comfortable with 'those people' around our son... weren't we afraid that they would try to molest him?

I doubt my father would suggest that homosexuals are more likely to molest young boys today. Members of the church, along with the rest of the country, have learned a LOT about homosexuality in the last five years. There is less ignorance every day.

On the other hand, I think that members feel a much stronger need to condemn homosexuality as a sin. We see a lot more anti-gay-rights activism, and in general LDS are talking about it (along with the rest of the country) a LOT more. Because of the church's position, this can come across as an increase in intollerance, which many people would consider to be a type of 'hatred.'

I guess one test for both of your claims would be this -- would a homosexual man feel more comfortable in the LDS church today, or would he have been more comfortable in the LDS church five years ago? It is really hard to answer that question, since in all liklihood the gay man would be closeted five years ago, and out today, creating two very different scenarios.

Another question... would the church and its members be comfortable with openly gay, but celibate male members talking about 'overcoming their struggles' in testimony meeting? How about a youth fireside where an openly gay but celibate man talks about resisting gay temptation? The church probably wouldn't have a problem with any of this if the sin in question was alcohol. Does the distinction suggest anything about LDS cultural and religious envrionment regarding homosexuality?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Robin

Another question... would the church and its members be comfortable with openly gay, but celibate male members talking about 'overcoming their struggles' in testimony meeting? How about a youth fireside where an openly gay but celibate man talks about resisting gay temptation? The church probably wouldn't have a problem with any of this if the sin in question was alcohol. Does the distinction suggest anything about LDS cultural and religious envrionment regarding homosexuality?

I've seen a guy give a testimony about his struggles with same sex attraction in my singles ward. You could have heard a pin drop in the meeting

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Robin

Another question... would the church and its members be comfortable with openly gay, but celibate male members talking about 'overcoming their struggles' in testimony meeting? How about a youth fireside where an openly gay but celibate man talks about resisting gay temptation? The church probably wouldn't have a problem with any of this if the sin in question was alcohol. Does the distinction suggest anything about LDS cultural and religious envrionment regarding homosexuality?

Dont know about alcohol, but I would imagine that they would react similarly to the way they would react to someone talking about resisting heterosexual temptation. Alcohol isnt exactly apples to apples.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by 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?

I have a question. Does anyone wanna answer Tick's question? lol.....interesting how the supporters of homosexual "rights" on this board avoided answering it.

[Archaea]

My memory of Ernoznik was erroneous. Go figure.

http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/U-S-Supre...5477%2C01.html

It involved the argument of underinclusiveness in a free speech case. Sorry about that. I just remember the discussion involved in the footnotes. Twenty years does something to one's memory.