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

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

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.....

Fus, the church has always encouraged its members to support good causes. Far more time has been spent convincing church members to do good works than has been spent opposing gay marriage. There are many good members of the church who do what you mentioned and more as a direct result of gospel teachings.

Next, though your ideas for service in this instance are noble and valuable they have little to do with protecting the family from "attack".

[Cali Coug]

[QUOTE=Archaea]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.

Originally Posted by archaea

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.


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.

Whoa there. Are you suggesting that the church should only advocate causes that are "doable?" If so, you have already determined that the church should not be fighting for this amendment. There is ZERO chance of passage for this amendment. Republicans have gained 5 seats since the last vote on this amendment, and they only increased the votes for the amendment by 1. That doesn't even begin to take into account the 3/4 of states that would need to ratify.

I don't know why you think certain battles are already lost. Trying to make certain actions unconstitutional is already lost, because it is a dumb way to try to fix the problems. Persuasion through missionary work and good policy is effective, however. If those issues were already lost issues, the church would have abandoned the missionary program years ago. Instead of focusing on amending the Constitution, let's stick with what we do well.

Originally Posted by archaea

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.

Umm, no. You are saying that. See my arguments above.

Originally Posted by archaea

"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.

First of all, I don't know HOW you can read anything I have said and come to the conclusion that I am calling all non-homosexuals bigots. If that were true, I would be calling myself a bigot. Let's try to keep this discussion a bit more honest. Bigotry is a very real problem within the church. I think much of it stems from the church's strong stance against homosexuality. I have no problem with them saying homosexuality is a sin. If it is a sin, call it a sin. I think they may need to emphasize tolerance of homosexuals as individuals more, however; either that, or the membership needs to pay attention when they say it.

How do you come up with these false dichotomies? The world can either have American Idol or the virtues of the gospel? I didn't know American Idol was the new symbol for godlessness in the world. I am not a fan, and it seems lucky for me! I knew I could feel the hellfires when I flipped past that show!

I don't know what your paragraph is trying to say. You claim we can't sell the gospel anymore and that our efforts in the US are failing (is ANYTHING succeeding ANYWHERE in your opinion?????). Assuming that is true, is it your position that we should therefore legislate our beliefs so people can be compelled to do what is right? If not, I simply don't see how this ties into our discussion at all.

FWIW, I think the church is doing a very good job of spreading its message through missionary work- far better than any other organization out there (which is how I think they should work to prevent gay marriage).

[Venkman]

[QUOTE=fusnik11]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.



Uh, yeah Fusnik. Five or six years ago, the church threw it's weight around an ammendment in CA to declare gay marriage illegal. The church had members go door to door getting signatures to get the ammendment on the ballot.

Just because the church is strongly against gay marriage doesn't mean non-practicing homosexuals aren't welcome in the church. If they "feel" that way, well then that's too bad, but do they really expect the church not to come out against gay marriage?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Uh, yeah Fusnik. Five or six years ago, the church threw it's weight around an ammendment in CA to declare gay marriage illegal. The church had members go door to door getting signatures to get the ammendment on the ballot.

Yes, I had to chuckle a bit when I read that as well. There was MUCH asked of us here in California during those times. Signature gathering, sign dispersement, calling voters (that one was very tough for me). The church was also very publicly involved in similar efforts in Hawaii and Nebraska. I'm sure there have been others as well.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Yes, I had to chuckle a bit when I read that as well. There was MUCH asked of us here in California during those times. Signature gathering, sign dispersement, calling voters (that one was very tough for me). The church was also very publicly involved in similar efforts in Hawaii and Nebraska. I'm sure there have been others as well.

Definetly a worthwhile cause

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Yes, I had to chuckle a bit when I read that as well. There was MUCH asked of us here in California during those times. Signature gathering, sign dispersement, calling voters (that one was very tough for me). The church was also very publicly involved in similar efforts in Hawaii and Nebraska. I'm sure there have been others as well.

Come on dude, five years ago I only knew of the church and it's stance on Nightline when they showed clips of what the church had said and testimonials of homosexuals who had forsaken their lifestyle.

As far as broadcasting over the pulpit I never heard an edict read strong arming the membership to protect that family that is currently under attack.

Again to say the family is under attack is highly misleading. I'll submit that the family is under attack, but it's under attack by heterosexuals, not homosexuals...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Come on dude, five years ago I only knew of the church and it's stance on Nightline when they showed clips of what the church had said and testimonials of homosexuals who had forsaken their lifestyle.

As far as broadcasting over the pulpit I never heard an edict read strong arming the membership to protect that family that is currently under attack.

Again to say the family is under attack is highly misleading. I'll submit that the family is under attack, but it's under attack by heterosexuals, not homosexuals...

Fuz, you're naive if you don't believe it's under attack by everybody. Anything that attacks chastity, proper love between husband and wife, proper trust and caring between husband and wife, drives men away from women and women away from men, anything that encourages abuse and so on.

There are numerous attacks, and gays are just one item of attack.

Boyd K. Packer has given talks attacking homosexuality, as have others. The Church really is not a place for practicing gays. It's also not a place for practicing alcoholics, wife beaters and any other type of sin. If you wish to repent, then yes, otherwise no.

Should sinners with no intent of repenting be made to feel comfortable in their sins around us?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Come on dude, five years ago I only knew of the church and it's stance on Nightline when they showed clips of what the church had said and testimonials of homosexuals who had forsaken their lifestyle.

As far as broadcasting over the pulpit I never heard an edict read strong arming the membership to protect that family that is currently under attack.

Again to say the family is under attack is highly misleading. I'll submit that the family is under attack, but it's under attack by heterosexuals, not homosexuals...

The reason you didn't hear anything five years ago is because five years ago, there wasn't a federal constitutional ammendment being considered. Five years ago, when the issue was on the table in California, the church made their stance known.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Fuz, you're naive if you don't believe it's under attack by everybody. Anything that attacks chastity, proper love between husband and wife, proper trust and caring between husband and wife, drives men away from women and women away from men, anything that encourages abuse and so on.

There are numerous attacks, and gays are just one item of attack.

Boyd K. Packer has given talks attacking homosexuality, as have others. The Church really is not a place for practicing gays. It's also not a place for practicing alcoholics, wife beaters and any other type of sin. If you wish to repent, then yes, otherwise no.

Should sinners with no intent of repenting be made to feel comfortable in their sins around us?

You are painting with a VERY broad brush here. Why do you assume this debate is about homosexual members who are practicing AND have no intention of repenting??? This, to me, is exactly the problem. Many LDS people hear about LDS homosexuals, and immediately they take two gigantic leaps: 1) the person must be practicing (or will be soon) and 2) they have no desire to repent.

There are lots of non-practicing homosexuals within the church who feel ostracized by comments they hear within the church.

For example, how often do we hear church members say that being gay has nothing to do with genetics (i.e., nobody is born gay)? Most homosexuals don't feel that they ever made a choice to be gay. They never remember a time when they didn't feel gay. But comments like the one above are typically used to imply that merely being gay is the product of evil choices on the part of the member and, therefore, the member is bad solely for having certain thoughts and emotions.

The church leadership apparently understands this problem, given that they have said there is nothing wrong with being gay per se, so long as you don't practice (which clearly suggests they did not choose to be gay, since I presume that would be a sinful choice making your status as a homosexual wrong per se). But virtually ANY discussion in a church meeting will include the above statement and will go unchallenged by other church members. Frequently, the discussion then takes a far worse turn and focuses on how "those people" are destroying families (which again is fails to draw a distinction between those who are practicing and those who are struggling to overcome very powerful urges).

The end result is that a member who has been fighting a very lonely battle begins to feel like the church is not helpful to overcoming any challenges (which can lead to self-loathing and suicide, presumptions that the church (and its doctrine) are wrong and that there really is nothing sinful about homosexual activity, etc.).

Church MEMBERS in the US overall are far too insensitive and callous. As a result, our brothers and sisters fall away or fall apart.

So what can church leadership do about it? For one, they could make a better effort to understand the trials being faced by homosexuals within the church. Offer to meet them. Create an open dialogue with them. Understand where the strongest pressures come from. If they are doing this, I have never heard about it.

They could also focus more on caring for homosexuals. The focus, to me, is currently on fighting to prevent homosexuals from destroying the family (as if heterosexuals aren't doing enough of that on their own). For every one statement I have heard from the church on loving homosexuals, I have heard far more focusing on eliminating their influence in the world. Certainly it is within the prerogative of the church to decry sinful behavior. I simply wish they would be more cognizant of the collateral effect of their statements, particularly on good LDS homosexuals who are doing everything they can to deal with the hand they have been dealt.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Fuz, you're naive if you don't believe it's under attack by everybody. Anything that attacks chastity, proper love between husband and wife, proper trust and caring between husband and wife, drives men away from women and women away from men, anything that encourages abuse and so on.

I said the family is under attack, but to say that homosexuals are the ones ruining marriage with their desire to be married, is highly misleading. Thus my suggestions earlier, if the church really wants to protect the family, get more proactive about saving our communities. Does the church do volunteer work? Yes, but could it do lots more? I believe so.