Let's stop beating around the bush

[MikeWaters]

and talk about the more core issue explaining why the church opposes gay marriage: it is the same reason that the church opposes civil unions for gays.

Now the trick is to explain why the church opposes civil unions for gays. And also why in its recent press release, it pretended to NOT oppose them.

Now we all know that the apologists are having a dickens of a time explaining the church's opposition to gay marriage. How the hell are they supposed to explain opposition to civil unions? But I know we have a few enterprising apologists here, so maybe one of you is up to the challenge of explaining why all must rise up against civil unions.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

and talk about the more core issue explaining why the church opposes gay marriage: it is the same reason that the church opposes civil unions for gays.

Now the trick is to explain why the church opposes civil unions for gays. And also why in its recent press release, it pretended to NOT oppose them.

Now we all know that the apologists are having a dickens of a time explaining the church's opposition to gay marriage. How the hell are they supposed to explain opposition to civil unions? But I know we have a few enterprising apologists here, so maybe one of you is up to the challenge of explaining why all must rise up against civil unions.

Is this so hard to understand? The church is against homosexual sex. The church has in the past and will in the future jump in the political arena on morality issues.

You may not like the reason but that is the reason.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Is this so hard to understand? The church is against homosexual sex. The church has in the past and will in the future jump in the political arena on morality issues.

You may not like the reason but that is the reason.

I think this is pretty accurate. The church is anti-homosexuals.

They ask us to love homosexuals, but to hate everything about them that has to do with their desire for intimacy, love, and physical affection (even hugging and kissing are abhorred and punishable). In other words, the very thing that some would argues makes us human, they ask us to hate in homosexuals.

Of course, they don't say this outright. They just wink and try to get everyone on the same page.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think this is pretty accurate. The church is anti-homosexuals.

They ask us to love homosexuals, but to hate everything about them that has to do with their desire for intimacy, love, and physical affection (even hugging and kissing are abhorred and punishable). In other words, the very thing that some would argues makes us human, they ask us to hate in homosexuals.

Of course, they don't say this outright. They just wink and try to get everyone on the same page.

Anti-homosexual or anti-homosexual sex?

It sounds like you're saying that the act of physical sex is what defines homosexuals. I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Anti-homosexual or anti-homosexual sex?

It sounds like you're saying that the act of physical sex is what defines homosexuals. I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

It's not just about sex. If two guys are walking around BYU holding hands and being affectionate towards one another, they'll quickly find themselves in front of the honor code office. It's obviously not just sex act that is the problem.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It's not just about sex. If two guys are walking around BYU holding hands and being affectionate towards one another, they'll quickly find themselves in front of the honor code office. It's obviously not just sex act that is the problem.

Of course, if they are walking around with a beard they will also go the the HC office, so I am not sure that is too useful as an indicator of eccleisiastical import.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by creekster

Of course, if they are walking around with a beard they will also go the the HC office, so I am not sure that is too useful as an indicator of eccleisiastical import.

It illustrates that the Church's problem with homosexuality goes well beyond the sex act. How often to we hear the refrain that there is no sin in same-sex attraction, just in the ultimate sexual consummation of that attraction? Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands, if that is as far as they ever take it?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It illustrates that the Church's problem with homosexuality goes well beyond the sex act. How often to we hear the refrain that there is no sin in same-sex attraction, just in the ultimate sexual consummation of that attraction? Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands, if that is as far as they ever take it?

While you may be right, I can only hope that the church's standards are not equivalent to the HC.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It illustrates that the Church's problem with homosexuality goes well beyond the sex act. How often to we hear the refrain that there is no sin in same-sex attraction, just in the ultimate sexual consummation of that attraction? Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands, if that is as far as they ever take it?

To the church, saying SSA is not a sin, is like saying a passing thought of a naked beautiful woman is not a sin, if not dwelt upon by the thinker.

However, love, LOVE, LOVE is a very different thing. And for a man to love another man is horrifying, and means that SSA has gone too far, and is now devilish and evil.

Why is holding hands so offensive and worthy of priesthood intervention? Because it indicates love. And if a man can truly love a man, in the true sense of love, then there is no God.

It's really as simple as that.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To the church, saying SSA is not a sin, is like saying a passing thought of a naked beautiful woman is not a sin, if not dwelt upon by the thinker.

However, love, LOVE, LOVE is a very different thing. And for a man to love another man is horrifying, and means that SSA has gone too far, and is now devilish and evil.

Why is holding hands so offensive and worthy of priesthood intervention? Because it indicates love. And if a man can truly love a man, in the true sense of love, then there is no God.

It's really as simple as that.

You seem pretty worked up about this issue.

Being the activist that you are, why not write a letter to the FP and lay out your argument for them? That kind of courage would be exemplary.

Have you shared these concerns with any local or regional Church authorities?