Are LDS people that support gay marriage

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's not inspiring either.

At least I'm on a roll.

And as DDD and Barbara are wont to point out, my humor fails me, but I really appreciate Jewish, sarcastic, dark humor. Mormons, we're often too light-hearted to appreciate it, at least that's what I notice when I make my failed attempts at it.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Levin

I don't think you know what it means to "be in favor of gay marriage." Many people may oppose gay marriage on a religious level -- they think God does not condone it -- but that in our pluralistic, democratic society, gay marriage should be respected as a civil right.

It is the same with abortion: many believe God does not condone it -- even forbids it -- but that in our democratic, free society, it is not the place of the State to forbid it and strip a woman of her agency in that regard, no matter the choices she made that resulted in her pregnancy.

BTW, I fully intend to have light-hearted moments in my next Sacrament meeting talk. Do I sustain the Brethren there?

Nonsense. The direction is clear. Gay marriage is not to be supported at any level, religious or secular.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

The Church has not added any questions concerning gay marriage to the temple recommend questions. They could start asking about it immediately if they considered it a core doctrine of the Church. Thus, I must conclude that they do not require a member to support gay marriage bans in order to remain a member of the Church in good standing.

This is a political question. You don't have to support a legal ban on abortion, either, as far as I know. Why don't they add this to the temple recommend questions? Probably because they respect the right of the individual member to disagree with Church leadership on this issue.

are you really that naive? Or you consider sodomy a political issue?

BTW.......what do YOU think about the Proclamation on the Family? Inspired or not? Simple question.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't know what they've done about it. However, I am straight and will forever seek heterosexual companionship.

What goes on in California is of little concern of mine. If gays wish to be miserable like straights, why not let them.

who have legalized it be valid in states where it is not?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by exUte

are you really that naive? Or you consider sodomy a political issue?

BTW.......what do YOU think about the Proclamation on the Family? Inspired or not? Simple question.

Does this all boil down to sodomy for you? So I'm guessing you also don't think hetero-sexual couples who engage in anal sex should be allowed to marry? What about lesbian couples? No sodomy there. Should we let them marry?

[UteStar]

Gays getting married ALWAYS boils down to sodomy, beastiality and pedophilia for a select few people that can't distinguish any kind of difference.

And yes, I have no problem with gay people getting married and I am a member in good standing and I support the prophet and the quorum of the 12. Do you think they are fine though with people like NorCal and exUte talking about them being fudgepackers and also relating it to sodomy, among other things.

If I were you, I would take a long hard look in the mirror about your own standing in the church before you accuse others of 'struggling' with their own standing.

[Ceteris Paribus]

Originally Posted by UteStar

If I were you, I would take a long hard look in the mirror about your own standing in the church before you accuse others of 'struggling' with their own standing.

Words to live by...post of the day.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What goes on in California is of little concern of mine. If gays wish to be miserable like straights, why not let them.

Multiple partners and no financial ties to any one person looks pretty good to me. I'm with Arch on this one and maybe we need to send them a note "Be careful what you wish for".

[exUte]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

sustaining the first presidency, and the twelve apostles? I am serious. If we vote to sustain them in this capacity, doesn't that include following their counsel on an issue they obviously feel is very important?

than the Prophet. They should demand a meeting with him and his counselors to straighten them out.........perhaps they could even pass along some info to the 'higher' ups.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

I don't think you know what it means to "be in favor of gay marriage." Many people may oppose gay marriage on a religious level -- they think God does not condone it -- but that in our pluralistic, democratic society, gay marriage should be respected as a civil right.

It is the same with abortion: many believe God does not condone it -- even forbids it -- but that in our democratic, free society, it is not the place of the State to forbid it and strip a woman of her agency in that regard, no matter the choices she made that resulted in her pregnancy.

BTW, I fully intend to have light-hearted moments in my next Sacrament meeting talk. Do I sustain the Brethren there?

you think God condones gay marriage? Or abortion?

And IF you don't think they do, you not only stand idly by but fight against God's will? Interesting.