Church Making Further Movements Toward Respect For Gay Members

[california boy]

This may be YOUR point of view. If they wanted marriage equality, California gave it to them, just not the term "marriage". Civil Unions provided all the rights and privileges that marriage provided for non-gays....but that wasn't enough.

My point was not that gays want marriage so they will be liked or accepted, it was more along the lines of what they want afterwards.

And by the way, I have never heard ANYONE in the LDS church proclaim that ANYONE is going to hell. That is simply not a phrase that is common in the LDS culture.

It is not who you love that will be the cause of someone as you say "going to hell", but who you have sex with. That is true for gays and non-gays alike.

We are commanded to love everyone.

Don't take my word for it. Read some pro-gay material like "How the Gay Rights Movement Won' and the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, how do you feel about antimormons digging up some statement made by some general authority at some meeting somewhere and proclaiming that what he said is doctrine?

Anyway. This discussion is just evolving into the same track it always does. I am taking a break.

[Kemara]

Oh Brother. Whatever.

Oh Brother, you are either knowingly speaking utter nonsense or you are woefully unaware of what is really going on in the organised groups within the broader homosexual community. May I suggest that you get up to speed before engaging in this topic from a position of complete ignorance. Wade provided you with two good resources, if needed I could provide you with others to assist you in coming up to speed.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Kemara

[Kemara]

So outside of gay marriage and ending discrimination for gays, what is the plan presented by these other groups

Is this an admission that organised groups with specific agendas do actually exist? Are you no longer trying to decieve others from the truth that there is in fact some kind of "plan" by these organised homosexual groups?

I am taking a break.

The Gingerbread man has left the building. Well Caliboy, you run as fast as you can, it doesnt make any difference.

You will be taking a break from the board. There is no excuse for the rudeness.

[Saints Alive]

Our existence and survival is dependent upon heterosexual relationships, and it is in our interest to not only encourage those relationships, but to encourage that they be formally committed and long-term. This is the reason that the government created and conferred the right to legal marriage.

Huh?

1. Mere human survival does not depend on committed monogamous relationships. The number of children born to single mothers should prove that alone. Beyond that, with modern technology it is very possible (and actually happens quite a bit) for a gay couple to donate sperm to a lesbian couple and for a lesbian couple to surrogate a gay couples child. I would be the last person to support a entirely gay world (nor can I imagine it ever happening) but it would be possible for such a world to continue to populate.

2. Marriage is only a government function now because of the historical ties the "Church" had to government. The church always had the right to marry, the government never created or conferred that right. If any thing they took that right away from the church.

[TAO]

Like I said, Tao. It's already happening (with or without gay marriage). Interestingly, in my neighborhood there was a lot of discussion amongst the kids around the time of Prop 8 as to what all of the fuss was about gay marriage. A lot of parents had to do some quick explanations as to the commercials being aired about a little girl telling her mother that two princes can marry each other. LOL!!!!

I realize that. Thus, why I am wary.

Edited November 4, 2012 by TAO

[Bikeemikey]

Robert, weg could just use the civil union -> gay mairrage argument if he wanted to... the point of his post was that their political activists don't really 'stop', I am guessing.

No groups politically activities stop, our chrych is an example of that. We are constantly ensuring that the legislative advantages we receive are maintained or enhanced. Why should we expect any different from other groups?

[california boy]

Is this an admission that organised groups with specific agendas do actually exist? Are you no longer trying to decieve others from the truth that there is in fact some kind of "plan" by these organised homosexual groups?

The Gingerbread man has left the building. Well Caliboy, you run as fast as you can, it doesnt make any difference.

You will be taking a break from the board. There is no excuse for the rudeness.

What I said was that there was no organization that spoke for all of the gay community. Yes there are multiple national organizations fighting for equal rights and marriage equality. Even within these groups there is disagreement on how best to fight for those rights. Sure you can find some person or even some group that has some wild idea. It does not mean that idea is supported by all groups nor by all gays. The gay population is much more diverse and has no central governing body that speaks for all gays. But what is spoken loud and clear is that gays should be treated equally in the United States.

At one time while he was an apostle, President Joseph Fielding Smith made the statement that "man would never walk on the moon". It was his opinion. It was not the consensus of all Mormons. Just because one leader made one statement, should those that want to attack the church claim that belief was held by all Mormons? I think not.

[Kemara]

What I said was that there was no organization that spoke for all of the gay community. Yes there are multiple national organizations fighting for equal rights and marriage equality. Even within these groups there is disagreement on how best to fight for those rights....

Ok, I take this as your admission.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think what happen was your comment saying that cb knew having been a member for a long time could be interpreted in two ways.... kemara interpreted that as you agreeing with cb's accusation while you were actually implying cb knew better. It was slightly confusing phrasing and someone like kemara who may not have read these interactions extensively and not be aware of your past comments and positions might draw the wrong conclusion, though someone like myself who is more familiar with your writing knew the point you were making.

But it is never a bad idea to take a break if the frustration level gets a bit high.

I agree, I did not want to add to even more confusion. What started this was California Boy's comment concerning Hell for those who fall in love with someone of the same sex...Cal knows this is not true. I love many of the same sex, my father, my brothers, my friends. The issue is not love, but look at my examples of father, brother and friends and add the sexual component...then problems can and will arise. After having read Cal's bio, I know that he knows this comment was false. I would expand but it might make the confusion worse. BTW...I am married, loving another woman would be a serious problem. Edited November 4, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

I love my mom(even though she is dead), and I still love my sister. So the issue isn't just love.

[wenglund]

Wade, how do you feel about antimormons digging up some statement made by some general authority at some meeting somewhere and proclaiming that what he said is doctrine?

Who said anything about "doctrine"? (Hint: It wasn't me.) For convenience sake, I simply provided two significant data points, one towards the beginning of the gay movement that set forth what was intended to be accomplished (The Gay Liberation Manifesto), and one that chronicled the gay movement up to nowdays and set forth what had been accomplished and how it was accomplished (The Gay Movement and how it Won). It is remarkable how well the two comport. I can provide numerous other references if you like, along with links to several threads on this board where I carefully set forth examples of different kinds of gay propaganda.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 4, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Huh?

I am not sure what you find so confusing. I am simply spelling out the key arguments that have been made during legislative hearings on DOMA and other marital laws, both state and federal, as well as arguments that have been made in related court cases where the DOMA legislation and other marital laws have been upheld.

1. Mere human survival does not depend on committed monogamous relationships. The number of children born to single mothers should prove that alone. Beyond that, with modern technology it is very possible (and actually happens quite a bit) for a gay couple to donate sperm to a lesbian couple and for a lesbian couple to surrogate a gay couples child. I would be the last person to support a entirely gay world (nor can I imagine it ever happening) but it would be possible for such a world to continue to populate.

The lawmakers and lawyers and judges and I weren't speaking in absolutes, but rather as a general rule. Even with all the advancements in technology and the social engineering, the existence and survival of our population is almost entirely dependent upon sexual relations between men and women. This seems to me to be so obvious as to go without saying, and ought to have reasonably been beyond dispute.

2. Marriage is only a government function now because of the historical ties the "Church" had to government. The church always had the right to marry, the government never created or conferred that right. If any thing they took that right away from the church.

Your baseless assertion is demonstrably incorrect. Read up on the history of marriage and you will find that governments, like the Roman Empire, first got into the marriage business around the first century A.D., which predates, by hundreds of years, formal marital ceremonies conducted by Christian churches. Those governments got into the marriage business, in part, for the reasons I suggested as well as to somewhat unburden the courts from ownership, property rights, and inheritance squabbles. And, while churches have the freedom to marry whomever they please, they aren't in a position to dictate to the government who the government will and will not recognize as legally married--at least not in the U.S., which is a secular government and not a theocracy. Contrary to what you suggest, the legal right to marry can only be conferred by those who write the laws--i.e. by the government.

Let me underscore this last point since it is too often misunderstood. The "right" that is at issue here isn't the cultural or liberty-based "right" to marry, but the "right" to be recognized by the government as legally married. For some time now in the U.S., churches have been free to marry same-sex couples, and certain churches have done so. They have had that cultural or liberty-based "right", and it hasn't been taken away from them. It wasn't until recently, in a few states, that the government began to recognize those marriages as legal.

Do you now correctly understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Let me underscore this last point since it is too often misunderstood. The "right" that is at issue here isn't the cultural or liberty-based "right" to marry, but the "right" to be recognized by the government as legally married. For some time now in the U.S., churches have been free to marry same-sex couples, and certain churches have done so. They have had that cultural or liberty-based "right", and it hasn't been taken away from them. It wasn't until recently, in a few states, that the government began to recognize those marriages as legal.

Do you now correctly understand?

Let me attempt to shed some light on the issue.

1. The government has to sole right to *issue* a marriage license. Any organization can claim to *perform* marriages, but the license gives it government sanctions.

2. We can distinguish a "right" from a "license". I have a constitutional "right" to be a doctor, a pharmacist, an attorney, but the government has the sole authority to determine the *requirements* for a license. Thus, local government can declare that a doctor must pass certain qualifying exams, and it can declare certain conditions to grant a marriage license, such as the blood relationship between the two parties, and the sex of the two parties. Thus, a father and daughter may have the constitutional right to marry, but are restricted by restrictions on the granting of a marriage license.

Hope that clarifies the issue.

Edited November 4, 2012 by cdowis

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa:

I love my mom(even though she is dead), and I still love my sister. So the issue isn't just love.

As I noted...is my keyboard broken...

[TAO]

No groups politically activities stop, our chrych is an example of that. We are constantly ensuring that the legislative advantages we receive are maintained or enhanced. Why should we expect any different from other groups?

Mmmm... from what I have noticed, the church doesn't attempt very often to enhance it's rights... it mainly stays in the same place, politically speaking. My point is this; the chuch isn't likely to demand of you to do X, Y, and Z changes to the legal system. They are more likely to ask nicely, and compromise, and do all of those wonderful things to get it. They aren't very... aggressive, and move... at a pace that isn't too quick, or too slow. Not so with many of the gay activists, however.

Edited November 4, 2012 by TAO

[Saints Alive]

The lawmakers and lawyers and judges and I weren't speaking in absolutes, but rather as a general rule. Even with all the advancements in technology and the social engineering, the existence and survival of our population is almost entirely dependent upon sexual relations between men and women. This seems to me to be so obvious as to go without saying, and ought to have reasonably been beyond dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It doesn't matter how you spin it, the logic doesn't hold water. Sexual contact between a man and a woman is no longer nessisary to reproduce. All that is required is a fertilized egg and a free womb. Nether of which require marriage, love, or heterosexuality.

It's really beside the point anyway because keeping gay people from marrying wont prevent homosexuality or encourage heterosexual marriages. The whole idea that preventing gay marriage will some how save us from extinction is patently ludicrous.

( for the record I don't support gay marriage and that is precisely why I hate these stupid, illogical arguments against it. We need to be honest and accurate about our opposition to gay marriage or it will be the new norm)

[wenglund]

Let me attempt to shed some light on the issue.

1. The government has to sole right to *issue* a marriage license. Any organization can claim to *perform* marriages, but the license gives it government sanctions.

2. We can distinguish a "right" from a "license". I have a constitutional "right" to be a doctor, a pharmacist, an attorney, but the government has the sole authority to determine the *requirements* for a license. Thus, local government can declare that a doctor must pass certain qualifying exams, and it can declare certain conditions to grant a marriage license, such as the blood relationship between the two parties, and the sex of the two parties. Thus, a father and daughter may have the constitutional right to marry, but are restricted by restrictions on the granting of a marriage license.

Hope that clarifies the issue.

I get the conceptual distinction you are trying to make, though I don't entirely agree with it. There is no constitutional right to marry or to be a doctor or lawyer or to drive a car, etc.. The constitution makes no mention of these things. These rights are conferred by the government through the enactment of laws. Licenses are simply a tangible conferral of these right as defined by the law. At least that is how I understand it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It doesn't matter how you spin it, the logic doesn't hold water. Sexual contact between a man and a woman is no longer nessisary to reproduce. All that is required is a fertilized egg and a free womb. Nether of which require marriage, love, or heterosexuality.

Okay. However you have failed to demonstrate that my argument regarding the general rule, which is the same argument proffered by legislatures and lawyers and judges who have passed and upheld various state and federal marital laws, somehow fails to hold water because of the exceptions you keep mentioning. Care to try again?

It's really beside the point anyway because keeping gay people from marrying wont prevent homosexuality or encourage heterosexual marriages. The whole idea that preventing gay marriage will some how save us from extinction is patently ludicrous.

You clearly don't understand the argument that I and others have made. It said nothing about preventing homosexuality, nor did it suggest that preventing gay marriage will somehow save us from extinction.

( for the record I don't support gay marriage and that is precisely why I hate these stupid, illogical arguments against it. We need to be honest and accurate about our opposition to gay marriage or it will be the new norm)

I am sorry, but whether you are for or against gay marriage, you have yet to demonstrate that you correctly grasp the arguments, let alone whether or not you have the capacity to rightly judge what is logical or not. Please, give a little more thought and consideration before replying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thread ban for insults

[Saints Alive]

Wade,

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point? I think you are a bit off.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Saints Alive

[wenglund]

Wade,

Do you even know what you are arguing at this point? I think you are a bit off.

I am quite clear about what I am arguing. Again, it is the same argument that was used to pass marital laws and the same argument used to uphold those laws in the courts. It is your perception of my argument, if not also your "thinking," that is more than a bit off. This is why I suggested that you give more careful thought and consideration to what I have actually said and do a much better job following the line of discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Saints Alive]

I am quite clear about what I am arguing. Again, it is the same argument that was used to pass marital laws and the same argument used to uphold those laws in the courts. It is your perception of my argument, if not also your "thinking," that is more than a bit off. This is why I suggested that you give more careful thought and consideration to what I have actually said and do a much better job following the line of discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well since its my thread I think I am doing fine.

Edit: Oops... Didn't see that wade had left the building.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Saints Alive

[RobertAC]

Well since its my thread I think I am doing fine.

Edit: Oops... Didn't see that wade had left the building.

And on that note, I will once again say that it is nice to see church leadership building bridges and moving positively forward in spite of differences of opinion between the people involved. It's nice to know that in the Good Ol' US of A that we can have our differences without going all Taliban on one another. I think that was the point of the thread anyway.

Edited November 6, 2012 by RobertAC

[Bikeemikey]

Mmmm... from what I have noticed, the church doesn't attempt very often to enhance it's rights... it mainly stays in the same place, politically speaking. My point is this; the chuch isn't likely to demand of you to do X, Y, and Z changes to the legal system. They are more likely to ask nicely, and compromise, and do all of those wonderful things to get it. They aren't very... aggressive, and move... at a pace that isn't too quick, or too slow. Not so with many of the gay activists, however.

The church engages a large army of lawyers and professionals to make sure our access to visas in around the globe are maintained. They work actively with govts around the world to protect and express our interests.

I am personally very grateful for this. As for pacing etc, our church uses all aspects of the law to protect their interests - we talk nicely and sue aggressively - what ever occasion requires.

[TAO]

The church engages a large army of lawyers and professionals to make sure our access to visas in around the globe are maintained. They work actively with govts around the world to protect and express our interests.

But it doesn't do so aggressively does it? It tries to do so with persuasive techniques.

I am personally very grateful for this. As for pacing etc, our church uses all aspects of the law to protect their interests - we talk nicely and sue aggressively - what ever occasion requires.

I'll CFR the sue aggressively. I know they sue occasionally, but I rather doubt it's aggressively.

Edited November 6, 2012 by TAO

[california boy]

What are your thoughts on the recent passing of Gay Marriage that swept the ballot in every state it was up for a vote. Will the church become more active in fighting gay marriage once again or is it a closed issue. Do you think the church will reach out more to gay groups pushing for less discrimination practices amongst employers, housing etc? Or will the church focus more on its own members and let the politics follow its own course. Thoughts?