Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[Stone holm]

You're free to rationalize any portrayal of the church in any way you want in order to further your own agenda. However, that still doesn't make it accurate. LGBT advocates routinely make a practice of demonizing those who disagree with them in this manner - as the article referenced in the OP plainly shows - and you're basically regurgitating the same phrases they use.

Westboro is anti-gay. The church opposes SSM and views sex outside of marriage as sinful, but otherwise is clearly not "anti-gay". To lump the two groups together with the same catch-phrase is simply inaccurate and does not reflect any particular desire to really understand the church's position.

I am not a gay activist, but I did experience the political activism in the Church during the legislative fights in VT and NH. The tone was much different back then than it is now. To say what was going on back then was not anti-gay is to be in complete denial of reality. But if it makes you feel better to live in a, hate the sin and not the sinner platitudinous bubble, well be my guest. But honestly reporting what I observed does not make me an activist promoting an agenda.

[Bikeemikey]

Forgive me, but I fail to see how that addresses the scenario I raised: two gay people, who consider themselves devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ (in every way but one ... cough-cough chastity cough-cough) and are already civilly united/civilly married, now desire, as devout members of the Church, to have their union solemnized in one of the Church's Temples. The Church refuses. Our couple sues. A trial court rules in the couple's favor. The Church appeals. An appeals court (Ninth Circuit, anyone? ) upholds the trial court's ruling. The Church again appeals. Because most churches (all but one?) now marry gay couples, and because gay marriage is the law in most states (all but one?) a now-liberal U.S. Supreme Court also upholds the lower courts' ruling.

How does separating the sealing and the civil ceremony solve that problem?

You cant compel a church to provide membership to anyone, nor can you compel a church provide religious service-ceremony to anyone. I think it almost impossible for this to ever change.

Rockponds solution is the practice that is currently used in New Zealand where I was raised. It is a clear separation between religion and state. My observation on this is that the actions the church took in arguing that marriage should be continued to be defined by the state, but only as a definition that we like, is far more damaging to future religious freedom.

The only marriage of religious significance for Mormons is the sealing. There will never be a scenario where the State provides definitions and standards on who must be provided access to this.

Will it be challenged? Sure. Will the Church maybe run the risk of losing our tax exempt status? Most likely. Will we ever have to change our practice? No.

[Stone holm]

You cant compel a church to provide membership to anyone, nor can you compel a church provide religious service-ceremony to anyone. I think it almost impossible for this to ever change.

Rockponds solution is the practice that is currently used in New Zealand where I was raised. It is a clear separation between religion and state. My observation on this is that the actions the church took in arguing that marriage should be continued to be defined by the state, but only as a definition that we like, is far more damaging to future religious freedom.

The only marriage of religious significance for Mormons is the sealing. There will never be a scenario where the State provides definitions and standards on who must be provided access to this.

Will it be challenged? Sure. Will the Church maybe run the risk of losing our tax exempt status? Most likely. Will we ever have to change our practice? No.

I agree we stepped over the line in trying to legislate our beliefs, rather than merely stating our beliefs and defending our ceremonies. Not only did that tactic endanger religious freedom, it alienated people who otherwise were sympathetic towards us. Americans do not like what they perceive to be organisational bullies and we put ourselves in a if the shoe fits wear it position. It is hard to say what triggered the change in tone and tactics, but it might have been that the leadership felt increasingly uncomfortable with the fit of the shoes, because we as Mormons abhor bullies and to have found ourselves cast in that role would have been unnerving.

[california boy]

Stone holm' timestamp='1368297999' post='1209258163']

I agree we stepped over the line in trying to legislate our beliefs, rather than merely stating our beliefs and defending our ceremonies. Not only did that tactic endanger religious freedom, it alienated people who otherwise were sympathetic towards us. Americans do not like what they perceive to be organizational bullies and we put ourselves in a if the shoe fits wear it position. It is hard to say what triggered the change in tone and tactics, but it might have been that the leadership felt increasingly uncomfortable with the fit of the shoes, because we as Mormons abhor bullies and to have found ourselves cast in that role would have been unnerving.

It might also be one other thing. The campaign for Prop 8 was ran on half truths and complete distortion of the facts. Because Prop 8 passed, most of those distortions have been exposed for what they were through public discussion and the court cases that demand the truth be told in a court of law. Almost all of those arguments against gay marriage have been found erroneous. It is this exposure of those distortions both in court as well as in the media that has swayed the public to go from the majority being against gay marriage to now being the majority in favor of gay marriage. Perhaps the church was unwilling to continue to support the funding of those kind of ads just to win.

[gree0232]

I am not a gay activist, but I did experience the political activism in the Church during the legislative fights in VT and NH. The tone was much different back then than it is now. To say what was going on back then was not anti-gay is to be in complete denial of reality. But if it makes you feel better to live in a, hate the sin and not the sinner platitudinous bubble, well be my guest. But honestly reporting what I observed does not make me an activist promoting an agenda.

Therein lies the rub - by definition, anything that disagrees with the current agenda of politicized homosexuality is technically 'anti'-gay isn't it?

The biggest difference, and one that the church does very well, albeit not always with the best messaging, is making a hugely different point about the overall role of sexuality in the lives of human beings ... an extension of which, rarely if ever mentioned by the homosexual community, is the 'anti'-gay policies of the church.

Simply put, the church, correctly in my opinion, views sexuality as subject to choice. This conflicts with the relatively recent claim that homosexuality, specifically, and sexuality in general are 'immutable', within the past few decades at any rate (and homosexuality has been around at least since the Old Testament first warns against it. Such a tenet conflicts with the church's, IMHO, correct view of sexuality. Yet this claim of immutability is the center of the real debate, one that put homosexuality in the same shade as skin color ... that whether you are straight or gay is no different than being black or white, and thus to deny equality based on some intangible, immutable quality that people have no control over is ... wrong.

That is what the homosexual community has been saying at any rate.

Does that standard really hold water though?

#1 - There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to back up this claim of immutability in human sexuality. The human genome has been mapped, and there is NO gay gene. Studies conducted attempting to demonstrate a biological cause very often find indications of patterns in the selected audience. However, when another test group is subjected to the test, each and every time, a different set of patterns emerge, indicating that the patterns emerging in these studies are the results of random groupings ... just as any three people might randomly all have blonde hair ... but then the next group of three may have zero blondes.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that people DO change their sexuality, most famously with Ann Heche - who went from being Ellen DeGeneres's lesbian lover to a heterosexual married mother - which sort of flies in the face of the whole immutability claim.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/reorienting_sexuality/

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/20/former-lesbian-turned-christian-tells-the-world-about-the-secret-thoughts-of-an-unlikely-convert/

In fact, the homosexual community sees this happen so often that they have coined the term 'hasbian' for former gay women who flip. And yet there they stand claiming that it is immutable and thus wrong to deny the rights of equality ... because ALL sexual choices are equal?

"He says the Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t designate the Family Research Group a hate group because they view homosexuality as a sin or oppose same-sex marriage, Potok says. There are plenty of Christian groups who hold those beliefs but are not hate groups, he says.

A group becomes a hate group when it attacks and maligns an entire class of people for their “immutable characteristics,” Potok says. The Family Research Council spreads known falsehoods about gays and lesbians, he says, such as the contention that gay men are predisposed to abuse children."

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/comment-page-98/

#2 - that claim of immutability has some serious effects on the legal and moral side of the equation as well. For if one form of sexuality is immutable, then so to must others. Would anyone of sound moral character state that this is so? Would we claim that we are simply 'born' to be adulterous? That our commitment to our spouse mattered not at all because we were immutably unable to control ourselves when some young tart winked at us? What about pedophilia? Polygamy? At what point do we as a society decide that sexuality is an activity bound by moral precepts and personal responsibility?

The church, IMHO, has this pretty much dead on. If I am married, and sleep with some other woman, I am subject to the discipline of the church. If I am not married, but take an oath of chastity outside wed lock, and have sex anyway, I am subject to the discipline of the church. Were I to sleep with a child, not only would I be subject to the discipline of the church, I would be subject to criminal discipline as well. At any point in there, does it matter if I say I was 'tempted' beyond control? Would judge in the last case care if I stated that I had an immutable sexual inclination toward children and then called him a bigot for disagreeing with my immutable, just born that way, characteristic?

Again, no one forces anyone in this day and age to join the church or follow Christ. You do so of your own free will, and that means you either choose to accept the standards of Christ (which no one said was easy) or you do not. If you choose not to, and decide that homosexuality is for you, you are free to engage in that conduct to your heart's content ... but that doesn't mean that your conduct should be allowed in a church, given legal equality to heterosexuality, simply because you turn the concept of personal responsibility on its head by claiming, in active defiance of science, that your sexual choices (but only yours) is an immutable quality.

#3 - Genetics. Even should there be a genetic 'cause' of homosexuality, this would be, at best, a contributor rather than a straight cause. The reason is that there are genes that are known to heavily influence certain emotional states, such as sociopathism, who have a strong genetic predisposition toward violence, but ... can choose not to be violent, even as they are 'wired' for it. It is one more example of choice being paramount in morality rather than genetics or immutability.

#4 - However, if you state any of this, you are instantly branded a 'bigot'.

That is tactic more akin to Joe McCarthy than it is to a discussion of morality in sexuality or biological precursors that influence or cause homosexuality.

In short, I see the issue in two ways:

#1 - the current pseudo-science that has turned the 'debate' about homosexuality into finger pointing absurdity and, to be blunt, emotional blackmail. I find it very hard to agree with any organization or group that essentially states, "Agree with me, however factual or not, or I will call you a bigot!" The Westboro Baptist Church tries this tactic in reverse and we revile it, yet the opposite is ... fine? I cannot in good conscience accept such a thing, simply because it agrees or disagrees with my political position.

#2 - The debate is correctly, IMHO, about the role of homosexuality in our society, about whether sexual choices should be tolerated or not. There are certainly homosexual couples that present a strong testimony to their choices and their basic goodness, but there are also issues like Senator Craig who get caught soliciting sex in a Minneapolis Air Port. That too is part of the homosexual community, as are the hasbians, and perfidiously promiscuous, and that aspect of the homosexual community is as much a part of the debate as is the role of commitment in homosexual relationships. Might marriage act as a break on the more sexually destructive tendencies within the homosexual community?

Well, if we can ever get past the calls of bigotry, we might be able to take an honest stab at the question.

Yet the simple fact remains that in the realm of politics, its not necessarily facts or even what is right that matters, its the ability to generate consensus .... unfortunately, demonization and emotionalism are rather easy to rally round.

[gree0232]

You cant compel a church to provide membership to anyone, nor can you compel a church provide religious service-ceremony to anyone. I think it almost impossible for this to ever change.

Rockponds solution is the practice that is currently used in New Zealand where I was raised. It is a clear separation between religion and state. My observation on this is that the actions the church took in arguing that marriage should be continued to be defined by the state, but only as a definition that we like, is far more damaging to future religious freedom.

The only marriage of religious significance for Mormons is the sealing. There will never be a scenario where the State provides definitions and standards on who must be provided access to this.

Will it be challenged? Sure. Will the Church maybe run the risk of losing our tax exempt status? Most likely. Will we ever have to change our practice? No.

There is one problem: Why are is the definition of 'marriage' acceptable to be defined solely by a societies non-religious?

If it is damaging for religions to 'legislate' their morality, then it is equally as damaging for the non-religious to 'legislate' their morality as well?

Its either all in with a healthy debate and consensus opinion that develops, or its ... exclusion of one over the other and the resulting unequal application of representational law. It is just as damaging to say we should ignore someone's opinion because they are religious as it is to state that we should ONLY value religious opinions. Its two sides of the same coin.

Religious people are part of a government that is 'of the people'.

[jwhitlock]

I am not a gay activist, but I did experience the political activism in the Church during the legislative fights in VT and NH. The tone was much different back then than it is now. To say what was going on back then was not anti-gay is to be in complete denial of reality. But if it makes you feel better to live in a, hate the sin and not the sinner platitudinous bubble, well be my guest. But honestly reporting what I observed does not make me an activist promoting an agenda.

I never said you were an activist, but you certainly do have an agenda when you use the same phrases in describing the church that gay activists use.

Oddly enough, your reality doesn't seem to include the observation of any kind of nastiness on the pro-gay side. Is that part of the denial you engage in on your side, or is it just not as important to you as it is to tar the church with the terms you use?

Aside from all that, you still conflate opposition to gay agendas with being anti-gay. As I stated before, one can strongly disagree with and actively oppose parts of the various gay agendas without being anti-gay. That should be common sense, yet that entire concept seems to be lost on the LGBT activists and their supporters - as demonstrated in your posts - who demand that any disagreement with their agenda be labeled as anti-gay.

In any case, leaving aside gratuitous comments about bubbles, the OP is about an article that misrepresents the church and its positions in order to claim validation for gay agendas. I've observed in this thread that you've couched a number of your comments in very similar tones as the article. My gut feeling is that anything you may have observed as far as the actions of the church go has been strongly colored by your own sympathies and agreement with how gay activists falsely portray those who oppose them. California Boy's post is an example of that.

[jwhitlock]

You cant compel a church to provide membership to anyone, nor can you compel a church provide religious service-ceremony to anyone. I think it almost impossible for this to ever change.

Rockponds solution is the practice that is currently used in New Zealand where I was raised. It is a clear separation between religion and state. My observation on this is that the actions the church took in arguing that marriage should be continued to be defined by the state, but only as a definition that we like, is far more damaging to future religious freedom.

The only marriage of religious significance for Mormons is the sealing. There will never be a scenario where the State provides definitions and standards on who must be provided access to this.

Will it be challenged? Sure. Will the Church maybe run the risk of losing our tax exempt status? Most likely. Will we ever have to change our practice? No.

I have to agree with Kenngo, that what he describes has a distinct possibility of happening. Anyone looking at the past history of the gay rights movement, and becoming familiar with the methods they use, will understand that a gay organization with a stated agenda will use every means it can to achieve that agenda. There is no compromise.

At least one gay organization, Affirmation, has publicly stated that one of their agenda points is that "same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships". Given in the context of their structure as a "Mormon gay rights group", it is not unrealistic to think that should SSM become the law of the land, they will try to use whatever means they can to force the church to perform same sex sealings.

Whether they will be successful or not, is anyone's guess. However, given the inconsistent state of our legal system, it cannot be simply dismissed as never being a threat.

[Stone holm]

I never said you were an activist, but you certainly do have an agenda when you use the same phrases in describing the church that gay activists use.

Oddly enough, your reality doesn't seem to include the observation of any kind of nastiness on the pro-gay side. Is that part of the denial you engage in on your side, or is it just not as important to you as it is to tar the church with the terms you use?

Aside from all that, you still conflate opposition to gay agendas with being anti-gay. As I stated before, one can strongly disagree with and actively oppose parts of the various gay agendas without being anti-gay. That should be common sense, yet that entire concept seems to be lost on the LGBT activists and their supporters - as demonstrated in your posts - who demand that any disagreement with their agenda be labeled as anti-gay.

In any case, leaving aside gratuitous comments about bubbles, the OP is about an article that misrepresents the church and its positions in order to claim validation for gay agendas. I've observed in this thread that you've couched a number of your comments in very similar tones as the article. My gut feeling is that anything you may have observed as far as the actions of the church go has been strongly colored by your own sympathies and agreement with how gay activists falsely portray those who oppose them. California Boy's post is an example of that.

My response was directly in connection with your claim that I was inaccurate about my comments regarding what happened in Vermont. Although VT now has gay marriage, the legislative battle in which the Church was heavily involved was really over the question of legislating civil unions. The Church has modulated its position over the years, and has slowly come around to recognising that being gay may not exactly be a choice. Personally, I am not sure that I believe it is. I have often said that I do not condone homosexuality or people entering into gay marriages. I am, however, a very strong believer in freedom of religion. The only agenda I am pushing is that if we want our religious beliefs to be tolerated and respected, then we have to tolerate and respect the religious beliefs of others, including the right to not believe. I also strongly believe in separation of Church and state. And, I will challenge people when they cross the line and start imposing religious positions by the coercive power of legislation. We as a Church clearly crossed that line. To accuse everyone who comes to the defence of religious liberty of having an agenda is like saying coming to the defence of American political values has an agenda. It is these kind of attacks that alienate people. The Church is true, does that mean It never possibly makes mistakes, and that some policies are beyond question? No.

[Stone holm]

I have to agree with Kenngo, that what he describes has a distinct possibility of happening. Anyone looking at the past history of the gay rights movement, and becoming familiar with the methods they use, will understand that a gay organization with a stated agenda will use every means it can to achieve that agenda. There is no compromise.

At least one gay organization, Affirmation, has publicly stated that one of their agenda points is that "same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships". Given in the context of their structure as a "Mormon gay rights group", it is not unrealistic to think that should SSM become the law of the land, they will try to use whatever means they can to force the church to perform same sex sealings.

Whether they will be successful or not, is anyone's guess. However, given the inconsistent state of our legal system, it cannot be simply dismissed as never being a threat.

That is interesting. If the gay community is a monolithic community, we have in large part contributed to that case. From what I have seen, however, they do not appear to be so. One thing I have noticed, however, is that the right wing which does appear to be very ideologically driven likes to project "agendas" on anyone and everyone who opposes them. Because of this and their frequent employment of fear mongering, I tend to discount arguments that rely heavily on allegations of sinister conspiracies that have very little application to any known precedent.

[Calm]

One thing I have noticed, however, is that the right wing which does appear to be very ideologically driven likes to project "agendas" on anyone and everyone who opposes them.

And the left doesn't? You haven't heard some of the left talk about how the right wants to force everyone to live their particular religion, etc.?

[Stone holm]

And the left doesn't? You haven't heard some of the left talk about how the right wants to force everyone to live their particular religion, etc.?

Yes, I have and have heard that being said with even greater vehemence since the advent of "the moral majority " . However, the left in America has always been a fairly disorganised group and will probably continue to be. Trying to organise the American left is like herding cats or nailing jelly to the wall. Because of its distaste for authority and authority figures it does not lend itself well to following agendas. Take the gays for example, the group that has been triggering a lot of the State litigation has been the Log Cabin Republicans. Weird, right wing gays, who would have figured. Even when the religious left erupted during the Vietnam Nam era, the Jesuits who are premier organisers really couldn't get the left organised.

Do not get political if you want to participate.

[Bikeemikey]

There is one problem: Why are is the definition of 'marriage' acceptable to be defined solely by a societies non-religious?

First, I never said it was.

Second, its not.

Third, as long as marriage is a part of multiple societal and religious groups it is not appropriate for it to be defined solely by anyone anything. As such marriage must be provided the freedom to be uniquely defined by every group or entity that has a stake in its definition.

[Bikeemikey]

If it is damaging for religions to 'legislate' their morality, then it is equally as damaging for the non-religious to 'legislate' their morality as well?

Choosing not to legislate morality is not the same thing as legislating a different morality.

[Bikeemikey]

Its either all in with a healthy debate and consensus opinion that develops, or its ... exclusion of one over the other and the resulting unequal application of representational law. It is just as damaging to say we should ignore someone's opinion because they are religious as it is to state that we should ONLY value religious opinions. Its two sides of the same coin.

Religious people are part of a government that is 'of the people'.

There is a big difference between what is valuable to society, what society considers moral and good and all that Govt choose to legislate. There is a a lot that govt chooses not to legislate that is relevant to both society's morals and sense of the good that is legitimately beyond the scope of govt action.

Yes, religious people are part of society, yes they are also part of the govt. That means they should have a voice in crafting what govt does (within the legitimate sphere of govt action). That does not mean that the religious should also be allowed to champion the expansion of the role of govt beyond its narrow legitimate scope to a broader over-reach in the interest in legislating their private moral religious convictions on those that believe and chose to act differently.

[Bikeemikey]

I never said you were an activist, but you certainly do have an agenda when you use the same phrases in describing the church that gay activists use.

Oddly enough, your reality doesn't seem to include the observation of any kind of nastiness on the pro-gay side. Is that part of the denial you engage in on your side, or is it just not as important to you as it is to tar the church with the terms you use?

Perhaps there is a difference between having strong opinions and an agenda...

As for observations of nastiness... Stoneholm and I share a common bond, as i think you do also. We are Mormon and we are not homo-sexual. I am much more concerned with that which I see and observe from within my own community, from those to profess to a label of faith community that I also identify with. I have every right to be far more concerned with the actions of fellow mormons than the actions of those in other communities with which I do not share a common identity.

This is both reasonable and proper. Is it a double standard. Yes. But that is how it is.

[Kenngo1969]

I have to agree with Kenngo, that what he describes has a distinct possibility of happening. ...

As much as I would like to be proven wrong on that score, time will tell.

[Bikeemikey]

You're free to rationalize any portrayal of the church in any way you want in order to further your own agenda. However, that still doesn't make it accurate. LGBT advocates routinely make a practice of demonizing those who disagree with them in this manner - as the article referenced in the OP plainly shows - and you're basically regurgitating the same phrases they use.

Westboro is anti-gay. The church opposes SSM and views sex outside of marriage as sinful, but otherwise is clearly not "anti-gay". To lump the two groups together with the same catch-phrase is simply inaccurate and does not reflect any particular desire to really understand the church's position.

The Church has historically been anti gay... The church has opposed every legislative policy in every nation that sought to change the status of homo-sexual activity. They have actively been against legislation that aimed to move homosexuals acts from the status of illegal to legal, they have been opposed to civil-unions and other legally binding relationship documents that are recognized by the govts. They have been and still are opposed to both Gay marriage and adoption rights to Same Sex relationships.

None of this is a judgement. None of this is a criticism.

The church views homosexuality as sin and has been opposed to every effort to remove legal penalties against homosexual behavior. They have also stood in the way and actively opposed of every effort to provide homosexuals access to the same State protections and benefits provided committed married hetrosexual partnerships.

Again, I am LDS and am not saying this with any level of judgement or criticism. This is simply my understanding of the history that I have observed.

Does this mean the church has been anti-gay? I don't know...

Are they militant and physically violent towards the homosexual community? Not as an institution as far as I am aware.

I guess this comes down to what the meaning of anti-gay is.

[gree0232]

Choosing not to legislate morality is not the same thing as legislating a different morality.

Well, it always a different morality when its someone else's isn't it? Whose morality holds sway?

And do you really think you can have a system of justice that has no moral basis whatsoever?

Religion has a place in the debate.

[Rivers]

The Church has historically been anti gay...

Not always.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/salt-lake-city-oks-gay-ri_n_353399.html

[Stone holm]

Well, it always a different morality when its someone else's isn't it? Whose morality holds sway?

And do you really think you can have a system of justice that has no moral basis whatsoever?

Religion has a place in the debate.

There is a difference when it comes to legislation in the United States. When we legislate something the basis of that legislation cannot solely be religious doctrine. Religion can and always will motivate people to give more or less weight to secular arguments, but if those secular arguments have been foreclosed then you cannot base a law strictly on religious belief, if you do then someone's religious beliefs are being infringed upon. In some States that is not a problem, but in California and in Vermont it really was because all that was left was the definition of "marriage" and we sought to define it based on our religious beliefs.

[jwhitlock]

My response was directly in connection with your claim that I was inaccurate about my comments regarding what happened in Vermont. Although VT now has gay marriage, the legislative battle in which the Church was heavily involved was really over the question of legislating civil unions. The Church has modulated its position over the years, and has slowly come around to recognising that being gay may not exactly be a choice. Personally, I am not sure that I believe it is. I have often said that I do not condone homosexuality or people entering into gay marriages. I am, however, a very strong believer in freedom of religion. The only agenda I am pushing is that if we want our religious beliefs to be tolerated and respected, then we have to tolerate and respect the religious beliefs of others, including the right to not believe. I also strongly believe in separation of Church and state. And, I will challenge people when they cross the line and start imposing religious positions by the coercive power of legislation. We as a Church clearly crossed that line. To accuse everyone who comes to the defence of religious liberty of having an agenda is like saying coming to the defence of American political values has an agenda. It is these kind of attacks that alienate people. The Church is true, does that mean It never possibly makes mistakes, and that some policies are beyond question? No.

I keep having to correct you, evidently. I did not say that you were inaccurate, I said that I suspected that your perception of what happened was colored by your perspective, and so was suspect, at least in my mind.

Making an accusation against the church of being anti-gay means that you have to provide concrete evidence that gays are actively persecuted and that rights available to others are denied them. Opposition to agendas pushed by gay activists does not in and of itself brand any organization or person as being anti-gay, though gay activists want us to believe that it does. The fact remains that gays have all the rights available to anyone else within the structure as currently established. The church, as far as I am aware, has not ever been a party to denying gays any right available to anyone else. That is significant evidence that they are not anti-gay.

What we have a problem with - and this applies to any special interest group - are demands that existing rights be restructured only to benefit narrow special interest groups. Such social experimentation creates elite categories of protected classes that have rights above anyone else.

SSM, for instance, is a special right being demanded only by certain narrow, but very vocal, activist groups within the gay community. From what I am reading, there appear to be far more gays who either don't care or are actively opposed to SSM. Where SSM has been legalized, marriage statistics for gay couples remain well below those of the general population by any standard of comparison. Indeed, there are more gays in mixed gender marriages by far than there are in same sex marriages - another indication that gays do have and do take advantage of rights available to all of the rest of us.

I reject your claim that legislative activity by the church amounts to imposing our religious beliefs on others. That's a rationalization whose only purpose is to try to push the church and its members out of the political arena so others can have free reign to impose their own agendas and beliefs on us. The situation with the BSA is instructive on what the real agendas of certain gay rights groups are, and those agendas intend to be far more of an imposition on us than anything I have seen.

Laws impose a certain morality on the population all the time. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't swindle others. The list is endless, but in the end they represent adherence to a certain moral and ethical standard. What you rationalize as imposing our values in order to restrict religious liberty - a ludicrous claim no matter how you look at it - is really nothing more than parroting the talking points that certain gay activists would have us believe. As the OP has shown, those talking points are based on misrepresentations of the church, and I for one reject those talking points as leading only to contention, and not to any real discussion or understanding.

I see the church today making great efforts to reach out and to understand. I see that in no way reciprocated by what I'm reading coming out of gay groups.

[Stone holm]

Not always.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/salt-lake-city-oks-gay-ri_n_353399.html

Notice the article starts out "for the first time.." I feel that the Church is backing away from its historical position.

[jwhitlock]

That is interesting. If the gay community is a monolithic community, we have in large part contributed to that case. From what I have seen, however, they do not appear to be so. One thing I have noticed, however, is that the right wing which does appear to be very ideologically driven likes to project "agendas" on anyone and everyone who opposes them. Because of this and their frequent employment of fear mongering, I tend to discount arguments that rely heavily on allegations of sinister conspiracies that have very little application to any known precedent.

I learned long ago that the gay community is anything but monolithic. SSM activists and supporters appear to be only a relatively small percentage of the number of gays out there.

I've indicated specifically what I base my concerns on. Feel free to dismiss that as you have, but you in turn have provided nothing concrete to support your accusation that the church is anti-gay, other than your own heavily influenced perspective.

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps there is a difference between having strong opinions and an agenda...

As for observations of nastiness... Stoneholm and I share a common bond, as i think you do also. We are Mormon and we are not homo-sexual. I am much more concerned with that which I see and observe from within my own community, from those to profess to a label of faith community that I also identify with. I have every right to be far more concerned with the actions of fellow mormons than the actions of those in other communities with which I do not share a common identity.

This is both reasonable and proper. Is it a double standard. Yes. But that is how it is.

I am concerned also with what I observe within the church. However, my concern is more with those who seek to mold the church in their own images - no matter what their political or social beliefs may entail - and in making sure the church is not falsely accused from within. Making a claim that the church is anti-gay, thus lumping it in firmly with such groups as Westboro Baptist, requires far more evidence than what I've seem presented here. I have doubts that such evidence exists, especially since I know a few Mormons myself, and have talked with them about their attitudes towards gays. While not perfect, the church is hardly a hotbed of anti-gay activism, as has been claimed. Instead I see a great many people evaluating their existing beliefs, many of which are the product of the influences of the societies they live in, and seeking to strike the right balance between concern for the deterioration of society and love for fellow men.

That is hardly the material that anti-gay organizations are made of.