1 Million Members Have Left Over Gay Marriage????

[PeterPear]

What's a "left over gay marriage?"

[Stargazer]

Also, it's not like you can't be a member and hold an alternate view.  I've supported gay marriage since ~2003.  And each time a letter was read telling me how to vote on the issue I simply voted the other way.  When asked to write congress, I did in fact write in support of marriage equality.

 

That's interesting that you think they were telling you HOW to vote.  Every time I've heard these letters from the FP read over the pulpit, I've heard them telling us TO VOTE without specifying which way to jump on the issue.  Of course you know which way the Church would LIKE you to vote, but I've always heard it expressed neutrally.  But maybe your ears are sharper than mine.

[Stargazer]

What's a "left over gay marriage?"

 

Uh, well, I don't know as I am qualified to answer this, but: nice one.

[Damien the Leper]

OK now I am jealous.

 

Just because he is beating me in points, that doesn't mean he is the "best"

 

Just because he is better looking than me, and nicer definitely, and smarter and better at writing and a true professional and, and and.... 

 

BBBWWWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!  

Drama queen. BTW, I'm loving moral relativism.

[canard78]

Look carefully at the claim. It is saturated with weasel words.

"Insiders have indicated." "... may have lost." "...up to 1 million members." (Emphasis mine.)

So if, in reality, the Church lost anything shy of 1 million members (even as few as one member), the claimer can say the assertion is accurate. And never mind about documenting it if you attribute it to nebulous "insiders."

If you can't pin something down as being true but hope it is the case and are trying to make an impression, express it in weasel words.

Give me a break

Absolutely. Nonsense article.

[sethpayne]

That's interesting that you think they were telling you HOW to vote.  Every time I've heard these letters from the FP read over the pulpit, I've heard them telling us TO VOTE without specifying which way to jump on the issue.  Of course you know which way the Church would LIKE you to vote, but I've always heard it expressed neutrally.  But maybe your ears are sharper than mine.

 

Did you live in CA in 2000?  We were explicitly told how to vote from the pulpit.  In that particular case I went against the promptings of the spirit and voted as I was told.  I felt so terrible about that decision that I vowed never to vote in an effort to "obey" again.

 

But now that you mention it perhaps the later calls to vote were less explicit but I think it would be silly to claim that the Church wasn't *strongly* encouraging specific voting choices.  That, of course, was followed up by zealous local leaders constantly preaching that writing congress (or voting a specific way) in favor of the ban on gay marriage was a matter of obedience etc....  I obeyed by writing letters but strongly encouraged my reps to vote against this draconian -- and at the time -- clearly political effort by the Bush administration during a period where he was trying to save what would ultimately become the 2006 democratic takeover of congress.  I thought it was a shame that the Church allowed itself to be a political pawn.  

 

Reference:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-leader-speaks-at-the-u-s-capitol-to-protect-marriage

Edited October 17, 2015 by sethpayne

[Guest]

Another hit piece on the church at the Huffington post. Basically attacking the Church because the Church went on a campaign against gay marriage. Normal stuff but this particular claim I found interesting:

"Insiders have indicated that over the last seven years the Mormon Church may have lost up to 1 million members because of all it did to end gay marriage. These formerly loyal Church members decided to side with their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family members and friends instead of their Church."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-bleeding-me_b_8299882.html

I don't know where they get this from but really 1 million over gay marriage? I am sure a some members might decide to with the LGBT group over Christ but I can't think of one person that has left over gay marriage. If one million is true, I should be aware of at least 5 or 10 by myself.

A million left because we did not abandon our beliefs as defined by God himself...good, they were not believers anyway and sleeper cells who sought our destruction. Edited October 17, 2015 by Pa Pa

[Stargazer]

Did you live in CA in 2000?  We were explicitly told how to vote from the pulpit.  In that particular case I went against the promptings of the spirit and voted as I was told.  I felt so terrible about that decision that I vowed never to vote in an effort to "obey" again.

 

But now that you mention it perhaps the later calls to vote were less explicit but I think it would be silly to claim that the Church wasn't *strongly* encouraging specific voting choices.  That, of course, was followed up by zealous local leaders constantly preaching that writing congress (or voting a specific way) in favor of the ban on gay marriage was a matter of obedience etc....  I obeyed by writing letters but strongly encouraged my reps to vote against this draconian -- and at the time -- clearly political effort by the Bush administration during a period where he was trying to save what would ultimately become the 2006 democratic takeover of congress.  I thought it was a shame that the Church allowed itself to be a political pawn.  

 

Reference:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-leader-speaks-at-the-u-s-capitol-to-protect-marriage

I've lived in Washington state for the past 30 years. Perhaps in California for Prop 8 they phrased it differently, and perhaps they did ask the Saints to vote a particular way. I have no complaint about that, actually. It wasn't as if they were asking people to prefer the Republicans over the Democrats, after all, but asking them to vote on an issue of morality, which this was.

But you were still entitled to vote contrary to that which the Prophet of God asked you. It's a free country, after all.

[canard78]

I've lived in Washington state for the past 30 years. Perhaps in California for Prop 8 they phrased it differently, and perhaps they did ask the Saints to vote a particular way. I have no complaint about that, actually. It wasn't as if they were asking people to prefer the Republicans over the Democrats, after all, but asking them to vote on an issue of morality, which this was.

But you were still entitled to vote contrary to that which the Prophet of God asked you. It's a free country, after all.

 

It just baffles me why Mormons think it's any of their business how two non-Mormons want to express their commitment to each other through a formal, legal ceremony. It wasn't passing a law that undermines your ability to live based on the morals you hold.

Now that gay marriage is legal in USA, how has your ability to make moral choices changed? Have your morals now slipped? Are you now forced to behave immorally?

 

Prop 8 involvement, in part, turned the tide for our family's faith. My wife stopped attending several years before my own faith transition and the church's stance on prop 8 was a major factor in her decision. Not saying that proves the article true at all. But in this small corner of Mormondom, prop 8 had a huge influence.

[Sleeper Cell]

It just baffles me why Mormons think it's any of their business how two non-Mormons want to express their commitment to each other through a formal, legal ceremony. 

 

And it baffles me why someone would think that, in a democracy, any law would not be the business of every citizen.  Strike the word “legal” in the sentence quoted above and I would agree with you.    

[canard78]

And it baffles me why someone would think that, in a democracy, any law would not be the business of every citizen. Strike the word “legal” in the sentence quoted above and I would agree with you.

Why draw the line at marriage? Why not wind the law back to making any homosexual conduct illegal? It was until recently in parts of America.

I didn't say that you shouldn't have the right to a say in your own laws. I questioned why, when an opportunity came up to vote, you would respond with anything other than a shrug of "if they want to."

Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care?

[Sleeper Cell]

...  It wasn't passing a law that undermines your ability to live based on the morals you hold.

Now that gay marriage is legal in USA, how has your ability to make moral choices changed? Have your morals now slipped? Are you now forced to behave immorally?.

 

Ask the wedding photographer.

[california boy]

Ask the wedding photographer.

This is a smoke screen.  In most states it is illegal to discriminate when you own a business against anyone because of religious beliefs, sex, age, race and increasingly sexual orientation.  Whether gay marriage is legal is irrelevant.  The famous wedding photographer case was in New Mexico, which has accomodation laws preventing discrimination.  New Mexico DID NOT have legal gay marriage when the state fined him for breaking the discrimination laws.

 

So just to repeat again in case you missed it, because you have used this example more than once.  Whether gay marriage is legal or whether gay marriage wasn't legal, a wedding photographer in most states can not discriminate against gay couples whether they are having a legal marriage or a commitment ceremony.   Got that??

 

Legalizing gay marriage in no way effects a wedding photographer, or a baker or a pizza business, or a florist or a donut shop or a restaurant or a what ever you want to bring up. Most states have discrimination laws prohibiting discriminating against gays for ANY reason.  

 

Canard/s question still stands.  "Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care? "  He deserves an honest answer.

[Stargazer]

It just baffles me why Mormons think it's any of their business how two non-Mormons want to express their commitment to each other through a formal, legal ceremony. It wasn't passing a law that undermines your ability to live based on the morals you hold.

Now that gay marriage is legal in USA, how has your ability to make moral choices changed? Have your morals now slipped? Are you now forced to behave immorally?

 

Prop 8 involvement, in part, turned the tide for our family's faith. My wife stopped attending several years before my own faith transition and the church's stance on prop 8 was a major factor in her decision. Not saying that proves the article true at all. But in this small corner of Mormondom, prop 8 had a huge influence.

That's fine. Like I said, all have the freedom to make the choices they desire to make. If the Lord through His prophet asks the people to take a stand on a certain moral issue, and some say "Screw that, I'm voting the other way!" then so be it. The Lord won't be sending out lightning bolts over it, will He? We have our agency for a reason, and that reason is for it to exercised. Exercise it one way or the other way.

As to the legality of gay marriage, of course it doesn't change my ability to make moral decisions. But the point is this: choose you this day whom you will serve; as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Proclaiming homosexual relationships to be the equivalent of heterosexual relationships, in effect calling evil good, can only be contrary to God's will. There is no scripture anywhere to warrant otherwise.

If someone truly believes that the LDS Church is just a man-made social group then I invite them to choose to disassociate themselves from it. I believe otherwise, of course, but to each his own salvation -- or his own damnation. The fact of the matter is this: the further mankind distances itself from the eternal laws of God, the more unbearable membership in the Church will become to those determined to hold onto the ways of the world, and the more who will leave. Ultimately, those who have chosen the world over God will come to regret it. But He intends to make this life a true test, and some will fail. I am sorry that this is so, but reality is reality.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Why draw the line at marriage? Why not wind the law back to making any homosexual conduct illegal? It was until recently in parts of America.

I didn't say that you shouldn't have the right to a say in your own laws. I questioned why, when an opportunity came up to vote, you would respond with anything other than a shrug of "if they want to."

Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care?

As you point out, homosexual conduct was once illegal in the USA, but also illegal in many other places as well. Now we shrug and say "if you want to". Why wasn't that enough? Because of dignity and hurt feelings? Hardly a sensible argument to base a legal opinion on, but SCOTUS did it anyway.

It has been the case for thousands of years that marriage was between a man and a woman. Even in societies where homosexuality was acceptable (ancient Greece), marriage was still between only a man and a woman. Now suddenly this is to be changed, and we're asked if we approve. Why do we have to approve if we don't think that's what "marriage" means? Why don't we just say screw marriage, what's the point anyway? Some of us might want to marry our computer, or a clothing shop dummy. That should be allowed, too, then.

And after I say this, someone is going to go crying to the mods saying that I think their relationship is just as valid as marrying their goldfish. And at this point, I truly don't care. You want to make marriage into something it has never been in a million years? Well, that's what you get. I think I will marry my apple tree now. And don't you dare make fun of it, because that relationship is precious to me.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Stargazer

[Sleeper Cell]

Why draw the line at marriage? Why not wind the law back to making any homosexual conduct illegal? It was until recently in parts of America.

I didn't say that you shouldn't have the right to a say in your own laws. I questioned why, when an opportunity came up to vote, you would respond with anything other than a shrug of "if they want to."

Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care?

 

Because there is a profound difference between not forbidding something and subsidizing it (and otherwise giving it formal state sanction). 

 

Why draw the line at gay marriage?  Wouldn’t’ your same argument hold for marriages between siblings, a parent and an adult child, etc.?  Why draw the line at monogamy? For that matter, why exclude non-sex-based domestic relationships (those that don’t even theoretically connote a sexual relationship)?  For example, an adult child who becomes a live-in care giver for a parent who would otherwise have to be sent to a nursing home.  Why shouldn’t this sort of relationship have the same level of state support and legal protection?  

 

BTW, long before Prop 8, I favored extending the legal benefits (and obligations) of marriage to any two adults who wish to enter into a “domestic partnership.”  

 

Since we are straying off topic, you may have the last word on the subject, if you wish.  

[california boy]

 

Because there is a profound difference between not forbidding something and subsidizing it (and otherwise giving it formal state sanction). 

 

Why draw the line at gay marriage?  Wouldn’t’ your same argument hold for marriages between siblings, a parent and an adult child, etc.?  Why draw the line at monogamy? For that matter, why exclude non-sex-based domestic relationships (those that don’t even theoretically connote a sexual relationship)?  For example, an adult child who becomes a live-in care giver for a parent who would otherwise have to be sent to a nursing home.  Why shouldn’t this sort of relationship have the same level of state support and legal protection?  

 

BTW, long before Prop 8, I favored extending the legal benefits (and obligations) of marriage to any two adults who wish to enter into a “domestic partnership.”  

 

Since we are straying off topic, you may have the last word on the subject, if you wish.  

 

 

Why draw the line at preventing gays from marrying.  Why not Mormons,  Why not poor people.  Why not people that are too old to have children?  Why not Chinese or Blacks or some other minority?  If we are going to discriminate against minority groups, why stop at gays?

 

Fortunately the constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection under the law for all of it's citizens.  Thank you founding fathers.  I can see if others would have written the constitution, the majority could simply discriminate against minorities and there would be nothing they could do about it.

[Stargazer]

"Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care? " He deserves an honest answer.

My answer is this: 1. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and it always has been, because the purpose of marriage is to engendering of children, which is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. 2. I consider so-called marriage between two persons of the same gender to be as ugly and as disgusting as a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender. Those are my reasons. That's why I care. You wanted to hear it, and I have obliged you. You may utter the epithet homophobe at me under your breath, or shout it from the rooftops, I don't care, but that is how I feel about it, and you aren't going to change my opinion no matter what you say or do. I see where society has gone with this, and I accept it because I must, but I do not now, nor will I ever agree with it. I hope those who engage in such relationships are happy in them. I wouldn't do anything to intervene in them, and to me they are precious children of heavenly parents, and I love them as my brothers and sisters, but they are still doing that which has been forbidden by God, and I cannot approve of it.

[JAHS]

This is a smoke screen.  In most states it is illegal to discriminate when you own a business against anyone because of religious beliefs, sex, age, race and increasingly sexual orientation.  Whether gay marriage is legal is irrelevant.  The famous wedding photographer case was in New Mexico, which has accomodation laws preventing discrimination.  New Mexico DID NOT have legal gay marriage when the state fined him for breaking the discrimination laws.

 

So just to repeat again in case you missed it, because you have used this example more than once.  Whether gay marriage is legal or whether gay marriage wasn't legal, a wedding photographer in most states can not discriminate against gay couples whether they are having a legal marriage or a commitment ceremony.   Got that??

 

Legalizing gay marriage in no way effects a wedding photographer, or a baker or a pizza business, or a florist or a donut shop or a restaurant or a what ever you want to bring up. Most states have discrimination laws prohibiting discriminating against gays for ANY reason.  

 

Canard/s question still stands.  "Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care? "  He deserves an honest answer.

 

Personally, two men getting married in a San Francisco courthouse is not going to have any effect on me at all.

However fighting against it is part of the message that God wants his prophets to proclaim to the world:

 

"And, again, I say unto you, Go ye into the world, and care not for the world; for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.

Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you." (JST Matt 6: 25-26)

 

A very prophetic scripture considering how much the church is being hated now by some for its efforts against same sex marriage.  But making a stand against it is part of the teachings directed at the people of the world and not just to members of our own faith.

[california boy]

As you point out, homosexual conduct was once illegal in the USA, but also illegal in many other places as well. Now we shrug and say "if you want to". Why wasn't that enough? Because of dignity and hurt feelings? Hardly a sensible argument to base a legal opinion on, but SCOTUS did it anyway.

It has been the case for thousands of years that marriage was between a man and a woman. Even in societies where homosexuality was acceptable (ancient Greece), marriage was still between only a man and a woman. Now suddenly this is to be changed, and we're asked if we approve. Why do we have to approve if we don't think that's what "marriage" means? Why don't we just say screw marriage, what's the point anyway? Some of us might want to marry our computer, or a clothing shop dummy. That should be allowed, too, then.

And after I say this, someone is going to go crying to the mods saying that I think their relationship is just as valid as marrying their goldfish. And at this point, I truly don't care. You want to make marriage into something it has never been in a million years? Well, that's what you get. I think I will marry my apple tree now. And don't you dare make fun of it, because that relationship is precious to me.

 

 

 

My answer is this: 1. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and it always has been, because the purpose of marriage is to engendering of children, which is only possible in a heterosexual relationship. 2. I consider so-called marriage between two persons of the same gender to be as ugly and as disgusting as a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender. Those are my reasons. That's why I care. You wanted to hear it, and I have obliged you. You may utter the epithet homophobe at me under your breath, or shout it from the rooftops, I don't care, but that is how I feel about it, and you aren't going to change my opinion no matter what you say or do. I see where society has gone with this, and I accept it because I must, but I do not now, nor will I ever agree with it. I hope those who engage in such relationships are happy in them. I wouldn't do anything to intervene in them, and to me they are precious children of heavenly parents, and I love them as my brothers and sisters, but they are still doing that which has been forbidden by God, and I cannot approve of it.

 

You still didn't answer the question, is all you stated is that you don't like gays marrying or being in any kind of relationship.  I get it.  You don't think that gays have the same legal rights that you have.  You think that you are protected by the constitution but gays are not.  You are welcome to have all of those attitudes and feelings all you want whether gay marriage is legal or not.  But that wasn't the question.

 

 Here is the question.

 

"Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care? "

 

 He deserves an honest answer.

 

 

 

[Stargazer]

Why draw the line at preventing gays from marrying.  Why not Mormons,  Why not poor people.  Why not people that are too old to have children?  Why not Chinese or Blacks or some other minority?  If we are going to discriminate against minority groups, why stop at gays?

 

Fortunately the constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection under the law for all of it's citizens.  Thank you founding fathers.  I can see if others would have written the constitution, the majority could simply discriminate against minorities and there would be nothing they could do about it.

Why not stop at gays? Just because homosexual relationships have never ever been the subject of marriage (unless you can find some examples, and then I will concede the exception, because it proves the rule). I don't need to go any further. Males and females have always been the subject of marriage, even when laws existed to keep certain males and females from marrying, it was always males and females who were the subject of marriage.

Equal protection of the laws does not require absurd results. Does the principle of equal protection cause it to be illegal to designate one restroom for women only and another for men only? I wouldn't be surprised if some Social Justice Warrior actually filed suit over that. Because if it starts not mattering any more what gender or sex one is, then there will be no more unisexual public rest rooms, and boys will be required to shower with the girls in high school. You think I'm kidding? Just watch; it will happen (if it hasn't already).

I love all you gay guys and gals, I really do, and I do try to maintain a pleasant level of decorum with you all concerning this theme, but I'm VERY tired at being required to say I agree with gay marriage and being required to SHUT UP about it or the PC Police will punish me somehow.

[california boy]

 

Personally, two men getting married in a San Francisco courthouse is not going to have any effect on me at all.

However fighting against it is part of the message that God wants his prophets to proclaim to the world:

 

"And, again, I say unto you, Go ye into the world, and care not for the world; for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.

Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you." (JST Matt 6: 25-26)

 

A very prophetic scripture considering how much the church is being hated now by some for its efforts against same sex marriage.  But making a stand against it is part of the teachings directed at the people of the world and not just to members of our own faith.

 

 

 

Yea I get it.  The church thinks gay marriage is the most immoral thing that any two people could possibly do on earth.  All other moral issues pale in comparison.  Abortion issues have been on the ballot 56 times in the last 20 years, but limiting abortion ballot measures is, well just not worth the church fighting.

 

 Heaven forbid that same sex couples are allow to marry.  It is much better that they have no way of marrying and just shack up.

 

And after all carrying the message of the restoration of the church house to house is the same thing as going door to door proclaiming how people should treat gay couples.

[Stargazer]

You still didn't answer the question, is all you stated is that you don't like gays marrying or being in any kind of relationship.  I get it.  You don't think that gays have the same legal rights that you have.  You think that you are protected by the constitution but gays are not.  You are welcome to have all of those attitudes and feelings all you want whether gay marriage is legal or not.  But that wasn't the question.

 

 Here is the question.

 

"Why should it bother you and how does it affect you in the slightest if a same gender adult couple marry? It doesn't effect you, it doesn't harm you, it doesn't directly impact your life or moral choices. So why do you care? "

 

 He deserves an honest answer.

I keep trying to give you an honest answer, and you don't accept it. Let me try another tack. It affects me in the same way that a starving child in Haiti affects me. In other words, the starving child in Haiti makes me cry because I care about that child's life, even though ultimately whether or not that child dies doesn't affect me one little bit. It won't affect my quality of life at all. But child-in-danger is a basic human emotion, and I have done what I could to help alleviate Haitian children's hunger, through charitable donations, and I care even though its no skin off my nose if one or all dies.

Homosexual practice is against the laws of God. Those who engage in them are placing their eternal salvation in danger. Proclaiming that same-sex marriage is perfectly OK is institutionalizing that which is against the laws of God. If two gays decide to marry it does not affect me any more than that child in Haiti starving to death does. But it hurts nonetheless.

Will you accept that one?

[Stargazer]

Yea I get it.  The church thinks gay marriage is the most immoral thing that any two people could possibly do on earth.  All other moral issues pale in comparison.  Abortion issues have been on the ballot 56 times in the last 20 years, but limiting abortion ballot measures is, well just not worth the church fighting.

 

 Heaven forbid that same sex couples are allow to marry.  It is much better that they have no way of marrying and just shack up.

 

And after all carrying the message of the restoration of the church house to house is the same thing as going door to door proclaiming how people should treat gay couples.

Actually, you don't get it. Not at all.

Except for the unpardonable sin, there is no sin which is worse than any other. This is because any sin, no matter how "small" you think it might be, and let's say that you think it weighs only one-tenth of an ounce, whereas murder is a ton, will keep you out of God's kingdom. This is because He cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

Let's say that you manage to make it through your entire life and you only committed a little teensy sin, and only one time: you said "God bless you" when you really didn't mean it. You took the name of God in vain. So, what's your status in comparison to Jesse James, the famous outlaw? The answer is, you are in exactly as much hot water as Jesse is, and unless you repent and are baptized by water and the spirit, you are going to have to suffer for your own sin, and you'll actually suffer exactly what Jesse does, if he doesn't repent. Because the only difference between sins is how hard it is to repent of them. Not the artificial and totally human assessment of their seriousness.

So, one homosexual act, one instance of adultery, stealing the crown jewells, or starting a land war in Asia, they are all equally deadly in the eyes of God, in the ultimate scheme of things.

CB, if a homosexual act is a sin in the eyes of God, then how can gay marriage be innocent? It makes no logical sense. The only escape from it is to proclaim that God either doesn't really exist, or someone made a copying error when they said that gay sex was a sin.

I don't get why you don't get that.

[california boy]

I keep trying to give you an honest answer, and you don't accept it. Let me try another tack. It affects me in the same way that a starving child in Haiti affects me. In other words, the starving child in Haiti makes me cry because I care about that child's life, even though ultimately whether or not that child dies doesn't affect me one little bit. It won't affect my quality of life at all. But child-in-danger is a basic human emotion, and I have done what I could to help alleviate Haitian children's hunger, through charitable donations, and I care even though its no skin off my nose if one or all dies.

Homosexual practice is against the laws of God. Those who engage in them are placing their eternal salvation in danger. Proclaiming that same-sex marriage is perfectly OK is institutionalizing that which is against the laws of God. If two gays decide to marry it does not affect me any more than that child in Haiti starving to death does. But it hurts nonetheless.

Will you accept that one?

 

Are you really saying that  gay couples that marry on earth will not have the opportunity for salvation?  Because gay couples don't believe in Mormonism and live celibate lives, they are damned for eternity?  That's why you are against gay marriage?

 

Wow.  How do you feel about straight couples that aren't married?  Are they saved?

 

Just what are you expecting out of gay couples that don't share your religious beliefs?

 

Should I accept that answer to Canard's question?