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

[JAHS]

I think that I have made pretty clear time and time again that I have never had a problem with the church teachings on homosexuality.  That has never been the issue.  What I am passionate about is fighting this direction the church took against gays OUTSIDE the church.  The church that I still highly respect and encourage my children to stay close to ATTACKED gay marriage in an unprecedented political campaign.  The leaders have NEVER addressed any other issue like they did gay marriage by raising 40 million dollars and providing 70% of the manpower for the campaign.  It was an unbelievable strong arm move that is so out of character compared to any other moral issue the church believes in.  Just look at the complete lack of political effort towards elective abortion for example   Limiting abortion in some form has been on the ballot 56 times since Row v Wade, yet not a single instance where the church did anything like it did against gay marriage.  

 

And what was the point of all of it?  To take away the legal right for gays to marry?   When anyone, including the church starts to infringe on the constitutional rights of others for it's beliefs, then THAT is what I get upset about.  I worked on the No on Prop 8 campaign.  Do you want to know why?  Not because I wanted to marry, but because I believed in protecting one's civil rights in this country.  Gay couples truly believed that they have the right to marry under the laws of California's constitution.  The highest court in California issued that ruling.  They were angry that the Mormon church and any other church thought it appropriate to take away their civil rights.   And guess what.  They were RIGHT.  They did have the constitutional right to marry not only under California law but the Federal Constitution.  This is a ruling that not only the Supreme Court  upheld, but virtually every single judge in this country.  And do you know why the majority of Americans support gay marriage?  It is simply because they also think that a church does not have the right to take away someone's civil rights.  It is taking away peoples civil rights that has caused people to leave the church.  It is the taking away of someone's civil rights that have changed the attitude of so many, especially the youth against the church.  Even within the church itself, maybe not a million have left, but certainly some have left the path of the gospel because of this unjust stance the church took.

 

There is a big difference from just speaking out and teaching over the pulpit like every other belief the church has and politically organizing to take away someone's civil rights.  For some reason, most members just don't get that difference.  Your post and so many other posts before you are proof of that.  

 

Besides it being a command from God to fight it, there are some reasons why the church got polically involved regarding what could happen in the future.  I am sure you have already talked about this but this thread is too long to go back and read everything.

Same sex marriage proponents advocate that tax exemptions and benefits should be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not accept such marriages. Even though the first amendment protects clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriages it won't be long before people start to try suing the church over this anyway or place some kind of legal pressures and  sanctions agaist church members or those of other faiths. If it is recognized as a civil right the schools will be forced to start teaching it to our children as an acceptable way of life,which is already happening in some places. When public schools in Massachusetts began teaching students about same-sex civil marriage, a Court of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their students. I think church leaders mostly fear the posssibliliyty of having our religous rights diminished in the future over this, so that is why they took action. 

[california boy]

Besides it being a command from God to fight it, there are some reasons why the church got polically involved regarding what could happen in the future.  I am sure you have already talked about this but this thread is too long to go back and read everything.

Same sex marriage proponents advocate that tax exemptions and benefits should be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not accept such marriages. Even though the first amendment protects clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriages it won't be long before people start to try suing the church over this anyway or place some kind of legal pressures and  sanctions agaist church members or those of other faiths. If it is recognized as a civil right the schools will be forced to start teaching it to our children as an acceptable way of life,which is already happening in some places. When public schools in Massachusetts began teaching students about same-sex civil marriage, a Court of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their students. I think church leaders mostly fear the posssibliliyty of having our religous rights diminished in the future over this, so that is why they took action. 

 

I don't think that attacking other people's civil rights is the best strategy to protecting your own civil rights.  Do you?

 

I wonder how Mormons would feel if an organized group started to actually pass laws forcing churches to marry gays even though ir was against the constitution.  Would it all be ok if the said "We love Mormons' Some of my best friends are Mormons.  We only care about their future.  That is why we want to take away their civil rights guaranteed them in the constitution.  Would you feel the love?

[JAHS]

I don't think that attacking other people's civil rights is the best strategy to protecting your own civil rights.  Do you?

 

I wonder how Mormons would feel if an organized group started to actually pass laws forcing churches to marry gays even though ir was against the constitution.  Would it all be ok if the said "We love Mormons' Some of my best friends are Mormons.  We only care about their future.  That is why we want to take away their civil rights guaranteed them in the constitution.  Would you feel the love?

But same sex marriage was not considered a civil right by the majority of the citizens of the US until now. Now that the country is beginning to accept it as such the church will probably eventually stop fighting it and try to deal with whatever future problems come up because of it. But before that happened the church still had to make a stand and get the message across to the world as they were commanded by God to do.  A lot of people in the country might hate us for it but we were warned by God that that would happen. It's not hate, it's that we want to obey God more than we do the secular world. 

[california boy]

On the contrary, I believe the Church was correct and did emphasize love.

There is a difference between the opinion of SCOTUS and fact. Is your point of view the only way to see it? No, other nations' courts have affirmed that hetero couples are unique, that the differences between them and all other pairs are not subjective, not arbitrary.

We can acknowledge the findings of SCOTUS without historically revisioning, without calling them the inevitable results of justice...they were a result of the choices society made which SCOTUS enshrined.

 

We live under U.S. law.  One should expect to be protected by that law.  There is a difference between the opinion of SCOTUS and what a church believes.  The law is what we abide by and therefore is fact.  Religious belief is what we try to persuade others to follow willingly and not by the force of law.  When a religion tries to use the force of law to make people follow their beliefs that are contrary to the Constitution, people are going to push back.  And they did.  And they are.  Those are the facts you seek.   

 

Of course I acknowledge that other countries have different guaranteed protections.  I also acknowledge that Mormons have a different BELIEF about gay marriage.  What does that have to do with it?

 

When a church is fighting to take away your civil rights, the message of love is hard to find. It comes across as an attack against your civil liberties, not an embracing of love and welcoming. 

 

There was no legal reason to prevent gays from marrying.  None.  The lawyers could never come up with one reason.  Tradition is not a reason (think slavery)  having children was not a reason (think we allow couples to marry that are not able to have children)  a definition is not a legal reason (think of all the words that change definition all the time).  Sorry but it was the inevitable results of justice because the decision was based on law NOT religious belief.  Very few legal experts expected a different result.  I think most Mormons didn't expect a different result.  They knew there was no legal reason to prevent gays from marrying.  And they knew that the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Can you honestly say anyone including yourself was surprised by the verdict?  That says a lot.  It was inevitable.

[why me]

The puritans more or less laid the foundation for the US moral code. And for centuries such a moral code set the tone for the country when it gained its independence and for over two centuries later. In my past, two people of the opposite sex did not live together or 'shack up' with an other person. Even lucy and rickey did not sleep in the same bed in I Love Lucy. And people generally married members of their own faith. This WASP culture persisted until the late 60s and 70s when the moral code began to be loosened. Very  few people would even have considered gay married even the 80s. It was too far fetched and immoral or amoral.

 

It took an onslaught of gay propaganda especially in TV sitcoms in the US for people to begin to change their attitudes.The destruction of the puritan moral code happened over time, espcially with the anything goes philosphy of relativism and secularism. And that god is all about love and understanding. Such were the attitudes of the more liberal christian churches when they embraced same sex marriage. I think that it is amazing just how god got it all wrong up until the late 80s when liberalization began. Suddenly, god is now in favor of same sex marriage and understands same sex love at least in the West. 

 

The puritan moral code glued american society together even with all its racial warts. It kept the media relatively clean and family friendly. Not to mention hollywood movies: Going my Way, The Bells of St. Mary, The sound of music, Mary Poppins, Doris Day movies, Cary Grant etc. And it kept the moral aspect of education in place. Not to menion a moral dress code for society etc. I still remember Butch saying his prayers before bed with Hazel watching in the series Hazel. And ol' Bing Crosby's christmas specials on TV.

 

Can we equate the violence or moral  poverty in US society to the break down of the puritan moral code and all that came with its downfall?

Edited October 18, 2015 by why me

[california boy]

But same sex marriage was not considered a civil right by the majority of the citizens of the US until now. Now that the country is beginning to accept it as such the church will probably eventually stop fighting it and try to deal with whatever future problems come up because of it. But before that happened the church still had to make a stand and get the message across to the world as they were commanded by God to do.  A lot of people in the country might hate us for it but we were warned by God that that would happen. It's not hate, it's that we want to obey God more than we do the secular world. 

 

I could buy into that premise if the Supreme Court of the State of California had not JUST ruled that gay marriage was a civil right.  What the church did is what George Wallace did.  He didn't like the ruling so he tried to obstruct it.  That didn't make the law wrong. it only made him wrong.  It was still a civil right.  The church KNEW that the Supreme Court of the State of California had ruled that gay marriage was a civli right.  What happened next is a shame.  Now the church will always be remembered as the church that tried to take away the civil rights of gay couples to marry.  Is that really what the church should be known for?  I guess that decision has been decided by the brethren when the went from preaching the gospel to politicizing the gospel.

[california boy]

The puritans more or less laid the foundation for the US moral code. And for centuries such a moral code set the tone for the country when it gained its independence and for over two centuries later. In my past, two people of the opposite sex did not live together or 'shack up' with an other person. Even lucy and rickey did not sleep in the same bed in I Love Lucy. And people generally married members of their own faith. This WASP culture persisted until the late 60s and 70s when the moral code began to be loosened. Very  few people would even have considered gay married even the 80s. It was too far fetched and immoral or amoral.

 

It took an onslaught of gay propaganda especially in TV sitcoms in the US for people to begin to change their attitudes.The destruction of the puritan moral code happened over time, espcially with the anything goes philosphy of relativism and secularism. And that god is all about love and understanding. Such were the attitudes of the more liberal christian churches when they embraced same sex marriage. I think that it is amazing just how god got it all wrong up until the late 80s when liberalization began. Suddenly, god is now in favor of same sex marriage and understands same sex love at least in the West. 

 

I wonder what you would have written about slavery.  That was also a foundation of this country.  That was also legal in this country for CENTURIES.  It continued for almost a century after the country was formed.  It is supported by biblical scripture.  The idea of Negroes being free was unheard of in some parts of this country.  The idea of him being equal was even more laughable.  Then with the onslaught of the abolitionists, peoples attitudes began to change.  That juggernaut agenda, as Scott likes to call it, didn't stop until the bondage of slavery was broken.

 

Even after slavery was abolished as late as the 60's that you speak of, blacks were portrayed on TV and movies as being nothing but hired help.  They were made fun of for being lazy and untrustworthy.  Some of those same beliefs still exist today.  The churches racists policies contributed to that very attitude.  It is hard for people who are black to feel the love of the gospel as well.

 

Some things are difficult to defend.  Taking someone's civil rights away from them is one of those difficult things to defend, especially over time.

[why me]

I wonder what you would have written about slavery.  That was also a foundation of this country.  That was also legal in this country for CENTURIES.  It continued for almost a century after the country was formed.  It is supported by biblical scripture.  The idea of Negroes being free was unheard of in some parts of this country.  The idea of him being equal was even more laughable.  Then with the onslaught of the abolitionists, peoples attitudes began to change.  That juggernaut agenda, as Scott likes to call it, didn't stop until the bondage of slavery was broken.

 

Even after slavery was abolished as late as the 60's that you speak of, blacks were portrayed on TV and movies as being nothing but hired help.  They were made fun of for being lazy and untrustworthy.  Some of those same beliefs still exist today.  The churches racists policies contributed to that very attitude.  It is hard for people who are black to feel the love of the gospel as well.

 

Some things are difficult to defend.  Taking someone's civil rights away from them is one of those difficult things to defend, especially over time.

Before your post, I edited my post. Slavery was not so uncommon in the world at that time. America was built on indentured servants. However, the puritans influenced the moral fabric that built the US. Its work ethic, its cutural traditions and its moral foundation based on protestant understandings. But nothing is perfect. But I  can't say that the US is in better condition since the destruction of the puritan moral codes. I see it as getting worse. The free for all value system seems to be causing some chaos in schools, in public life and in traditions. I Love Lucy was a great family fun show but then again so was the jack benny show or george and gracie. And so were many other shows.Wholesome entertainment seems to be lacking. But at least with the destruction of puritanism, gays can now get married.

 

Blacks made up only 12 percent of US society.  And WASP culture was dominant. But the black churches also taught a puritan moral code.

Edited October 18, 2015 by why me

[busybee]

 It is hard for people who are black to feel the love of the gospel as well.

 

 

I know of tens of thousands of black Africans who would vehemently disagree with your statement. I am tempted to ask for a CFR that it is hard for black people to feel the love of the gospel, but I will refrain as I am feeling particularly charitable today 

Edited October 18, 2015 by busybee

[Calm]

"Wholesome entertainment seems to be lacking."

 

That was often based on demeaning someone for their lack of intelligence or common sense...or promoting manipulation and lying to get what one wants (with little consequences and usually no long term learning/change of behaviour).  I don't find that particularly wholesome myself.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Calm

[Stargazer]

There is a big difference from just speaking out and teaching over the pulpit like every other belief the church has and politically organizing to take away someone's civil rights.  For some reason, most members just don't get that difference.  Your post and so many other posts before you are proof of that.

But the problem was that it wasn't just the LDS Church that urged its members to act in respect of this matter. The RCC as well, and the LDS Church, whose members were in distinct minority in California, itself provided minimal support to the effort, though it did urge members to support Prop 8.

The thing is, this was not a civil right until certain courts started inventing it. Prop 8 was an effort to turn back the tide on this. But the court in CA wasn't having it. How can a previously nonexistent civil right be taken away? It wasn't as if someone was attempting to take the right to vote away from, say, all left-handed red-heads. It was resisting the court-imposed, previously nonexistent right of gay marriage. And you will note that having lost the fight in California, the Church seems to have concluded it had given the matter its best effort, and had done all it could do, and essentially gave up. In my own Washington state, when a statewide initiative was on the ballot that created gay marriage, the Church did nothing but urge its members over the pulpit to vote on the issue, without suggesting how they should vote. Interestingly, the state previously had a civil partnership law in force that gave gays -- and straights -- the right to contract a legal personal contract that provided all the benefits of marriage without actually calling it marriage. This only lasted two or three years before full gay marriage was passed.

You do understand that in many or most jurisdictions where the courts imposed this right of gay marriage, it was over the objections of voters, over the objections of the will of the people, the overwhelming number of which were not Mormons. It's not like the LDS Church was alone in trying to stop this. For all that advocates like to say that this doesn't hurt anyone's heterosexual marriage, it was nevertheless the heartfelt perception that saying that there is no difference between same- and different-sex relationships was a dilution or a denigration of heterosexual marriage.

God does live and He has standards, and I don't think He would have been happy with His Church if they had not at least given the matter one good fight. If you choose to believe that God is all for gay marriage, then you're entitled to your belief, but I think that if this were the case, He would have provided for gay marriage in the Law of Moses. But He didn't.

So now we have gay marriage. And we will see what happens hereafter.

I think the matter is concluded.

[california boy]

But the problem was that it wasn't just the LDS Church that urged its members to act in respect of this matter. The RCC as well, and the LDS Church, whose members were in distinct minority in California, itself provided minimal support to the effort, though it did urge members to support Prop 8.

 

 

I agree that it was not just the LDS Church.  But the LDS Church did the lion's share of the campaigning, so they get the lion's share of the credit.  That seems fair.  Saying that the church provided minimal support to the effort is disingenuous.  Sorry.  Not buying that.

 

The thing is, this was not a civil right until certain courts started inventing it. Prop 8 was an effort to turn back the tide on this. But the court in CA wasn't having it. How can a previously nonexistent civil right be taken away? It wasn't as if someone was attempting to take the right to vote away from, say, all left-handed red-heads. It was resisting the court-imposed, previously nonexistent right of gay marriage. And you will note that having lost the fight in California, the Church seems to have concluded it had given the matter its best effort, and had done all it could do, and essentially gave up. In my own Washington state, when a statewide initiative was on the ballot that created gay marriage, the Church did nothing but urge its members over the pulpit to vote on the issue, without suggesting how they should vote. Interestingly, the state previously had a civil partnership law in force that gave gays -- and straights -- the right to contract a legal personal contract that provided all the benefits of marriage without actually calling it marriage. This only lasted two or three years before full gay marriage was passed.

 

 

This is where you and so many members are completely wrong.  This was always about the civil rights of gays being taken away from them.  I worked on the No on Prop 8 campaign.  Every single person that I was working with felt this was a civil right issue guaranteed them by the State Constitution of California.  The Supreme Court of California had ruled it as such and now Prop 8 was taking away that civil right.  Those are the FACTS.  It was not a non existent right.  That certain court you refer to is the highest court in the state of California.  Do you not think that their ruling counted in the state of California?  Can you honestly look me in the eye, knowing that the Supreme Court of California had ruled that gay marriage was a civil right and really tell me it was not a civil right?????????

 

Mormons saw things differently. They thought that they could change the constitution of the Stare of California by writing into it an amendment prohibiting marriage between same sex couples.  They succeeded.  Prop 8 was an amendment to the state constitution.  That law was then challenged under the United States Constitution, not only in California, but throughout the United States.  The rest is history.  And what was the ruling based on?  The civil rights guaranteed under the constitution.  The same similar wording that was in the California constitution. So now it is law.  If you don't think this is a Civil Rights issue, then what basis did both the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States base their ruling on??

 

You are also wrong about the church loosing the fight in California.  They won.  Their reasons for not continuing the campaign to other states was probably because they did not expect the outrage citizens had against the church for being instrumental in taking away someone's civil rights.  That issue was brought up time and time again on news program when this issue was discussed.  

 

and like I said previously, separate but equal is not an American value.

 

You do understand that in many or most jurisdictions where the courts imposed this right of gay marriage, it was over the objections of voters, over the objections of the will of the people, the overwhelming number of which were not Mormons. It's not like the LDS Church was alone in trying to stop this. For all that advocates like to say that this doesn't hurt anyone's heterosexual marriage, it was nevertheless the heartfelt perception that saying that there is no difference between same- and different-sex relationships was a dilution or a denigration of heterosexual marriage.

 

 

 

I absolutely understand that many people voted state laws preventing gay marriage.  But fortunately our constitution addresses directly the basic protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.  It is why gays had legal recourse.

 

 

God does live and He has standards, and I don't think He would have been happy with His Church if they had not at least given the matter one good fight. If you choose to believe that God is all for gay marriage, then you're entitled to your belief, but I think that if this were the case, He would have provided for gay marriage in the Law of Moses. But He didn't.

So now we have gay marriage. And we will see what happens hereafter.

 I thinkn the matter is concluded.

 

 

 

What you believe and what I believe about God's position on gay marriage is irrelevant to the laws we live under in this country.  Christ made that pretty clear when He was on the earth.  Render under to Cesar that which is Cesar's and unto God that which is Gods.  I respect your belief on what you think God's position on gay marriage is.  Frankly I have no idea personally what God believes.  I have never made such a claim.  Nor am I married to my boyfriend.  God has never revealed his position on gay marriage to anyone.  That doesn't mean that the bretheren are disengenuous in trying to guess what doctrine God wants in His church.  Without a revelation what can anyone expect?  They are only doing what they feel the spirit is telling them to do. 

 

The gay marriage issue has been rectified through the legal system of our country.  But there are still a lot of work to be done to insure gay citizens are treated equally in this country.  Discrimination still exists in housing, employment and public accommodation laws.  These are the next big issues facing those that truly believe that everyone should have the same civil rights.  I applaud the church for making a big step forward in the State of Utah on these matters.  That does count for something.

 

[why me]

 

The gay marriage issue has been rectified through the legal system of our country.  But there are still a lot of work to be done to insure gay citizens are treated equally in this country.  Discrimination still exists in housing, employment and public accommodation laws.  These are the next big issues facing those that truly believe that everyone should have the same civil rights.  I applaud the church for making a big step forward in the State of Utah on these matters.  That does count for something.

 

Very few people are treated equally in the US. After all we have the 1 percent ruling over the 99 percent. Many people are experiencing issues and problems. It is built into the system. The problem is really simple. Too many fractures in american life. Too many different groups fighting for better rights. And yet, none working together. And none are actually succeeding. Gays can marry. But they are chucked out of  a job just like everyone else when profits are down. No rights there at all. And gays are living in poverty too but at least they can now marry. And housing? Not easy to get into a public housing apartment if one is a white male, straight or gay.

 

So what are civil rights in a survival of the fittest society where capital rules over people?

Edited October 18, 2015 by why me

[Meadowchik]

We live under U.S. law. One should expect to be protected by that law. There is a difference between the opinion of SCOTUS and what a church believes. The law is what we abide by and therefore is fact. Religious belief is what we try to persuade others to follow willingly and not by the force of law. When a religion tries to use the force of law to make people follow their beliefs that are contrary to the Constitution, people are going to push back. And they did. And they are. Those are the facts you seek.

Of course I acknowledge that other countries have different guaranteed protections. I also acknowledge that Mormons have a different BELIEF about gay marriage. What does that have to do with it?

When a church is fighting to take away your civil rights, the message of love is hard to find. It comes across as an attack against your civil liberties, not an embracing of love and welcoming.

There was no legal reason to prevent gays from marrying. None. The lawyers could never come up with one reason. Tradition is not a reason (think slavery) having children was not a reason (think we allow couples to marry that are not able to have children) a definition is not a legal reason (think of all the words that change definition all the time). Sorry but it was the inevitable results of justice because the decision was based on law NOT religious belief. Very few legal experts expected a different result. I think most Mormons didn't expect a different result. They knew there was no legal reason to prevent gays from marrying. And they knew that the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Can you honestly say anyone including yourself was surprised by the verdict? That says a lot. It was inevitable.

I never said I was surprised by the verdict, and I wasn't. The court had already showed their hand enough to make their decision predictable.

It wasn't an inevitable result of justice. On the contrary, the opinion did not even use Equal Protection as an argument, but in effect, invented and defined a "constitutional right" in one fell swoop. SCOTUS didn't interpret law, but invented.

Now, that part of it was not predicted by the experts. The end result, yes, the means? No.

The Church had a legit role in defending the well-defined definition of marriage, even moreso a moral right because it works to support families, repair them, and help individuals suffering from breakdown of families.

If you've read a variety of literature from ssm proponents who are also legal experts, you'd find legal opinions that ssm will lead to a disestablishment of legal marriage altogether. Thus, the concerns that ssm would necessarily deconstruct legal marriage were and are still genuine, and not just Chicken Littling.

[Meadowchik]

We live under U.S. law. One should expect to be protected by that law. There is a difference between the opinion of SCOTUS and what a church believes. The law is what we abide by and therefore is fact. Religious belief is what we try to persuade others to follow willingly and not by the force of law. When a religion tries to use the force of law to make people follow their beliefs that are contrary to the Constitution, people are going to push back. And they did. And they are. Those are the facts you seek.

Of course I acknowledge that other countries have different guaranteed protections.

Did you know that French law found gay marriage bans constitutional without relying on religious argument?

France has very secular laws. Allowing a law to be based on purely religious ideas would be out of the question.

Why is this relevant? It goes to show that the stereotype that "ssm opposition = religious prejudice" is extremely faulty.

Also, it is relevant that a high court of another Western nation with roots shared with our own could say that a hetero couple serves a unique public purpose definable by law, exclusively in "marriage."

In other words, the Church was not merely supporting marriage as if it were only a religious institution, but as a vital public institution.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Meadowchik

[JAHS]

I could buy into that premise if the Supreme Court of the State of California had not JUST ruled that gay marriage was a civil right.  What the church did is what George Wallace did.  He didn't like the ruling so he tried to obstruct it.  That didn't make the law wrong. it only made him wrong.  It was still a civil right.  The church KNEW that the Supreme Court of the State of California had ruled that gay marriage was a civli right.  What happened next is a shame.  Now the church will always be remembered as the church that tried to take away the civil rights of gay couples to marry.  Is that really what the church should be known for?  I guess that decision has been decided by the brethren when the went from preaching the gospel to politicizing the gospel.

You are still not recognizing the fact that to us it was God that is behind our efforts; not a bunch of gay haters. If the Church has to be remembered for that, then so be it. At least we did what God wanted us to do. Preaching and politicizing is just following the the principle that faith without works is dead.

[filovirus]

So we have had a million threads on the pros and cons of SSM. A lot of viewpoints have been expressed. At times it has been very decisive. The courts have issued their verdict. The church has made their statement. Nothing is going to change on this issue. I would like to propose that we move on to other topics. Sure there will be other issues with church beliefs and the gay community. But on the issue of gay marriage it is pointless to continue to talk about it

So I make a proposal. I will never do another post concerning gay marriage. Who will join me. Who else is ready to move on. Let's hear from you

[california boy]

 

 

 

So we have had a million threads on the pros and cons of SSM. A lot of viewpoints have been expressed. At times it has been very decisive. The courts have issued their verdict. The church has made their statement. Nothing is going to change on this issue. I would like to propose that we move on to other topics. Sure there will be other issues with church beliefs and the gay community. But on the issue of gay marriage it is pointless to continue to talk about it

So I make a proposal. I will never do another post concerning gay marriage. Who will join me. Who else is ready to move on. Let's hear from you

 

 

You are right.  I have said enough.  I do get sucked into this issue from time to time.  I have a moral problem with revisionist history on this subject.  People claiming that equal protection was not part of the issue, people pointing to foreign law when we are talking about U.S. constitutional protection, and people claiming that religious belief should trump civil law.

 

 I don't fault the church for defending Prop 8.  I have said many times that they have the legal right to do so.  I have also acknowledged numerous times that the church did so because of their beliefs on marriage.  I have no problem with any of that.  I only have a problem when members won't own up to what happened and what was going on.  I only have a problem when people start claiming

 

1) The church was not involved in Prop 8, it was the members.  

2) The church didn't play a major role in passing Prop 8, after all other churches share the same belief.  

3) It wasn't about equal protection and denying gays their legal right to marry under the laws of the State of California.  

4) The courts invented civil rights just for gay marriage.  It didn't exist before.

5) If the church didn't attack the gays civil rights, then the church would start to loose their civil rights.

6) The church's position was not just based on religious belief.

 

There I have said my peace.  Gay marriage is now legal.  The church can continue to believe that gay marriage is the only moral issue worth spending 40 million dollars to defend at the ballot box and God told the church to do it, so it is not their fault.  All of which may be true.  

Edited October 18, 2015 by california boy

[JLHPROF]

 

So I make a proposal. I will never do another post concerning gay marriage. Who will join me. Who else is ready to move on. Let's hear from you

 

Can we include global warming, evolution, and anything else societal, political, or scientific?

 

Personally, I get much more enjoyment and fulfillment when the board is flooded with doctrinal, theological, scriptural, (and the occasional historical) threads.

Of course, I realize that this isn't just a doctrinal board and I am just one opinion, but I sure enjoy those threads more.

[Storm Rider]

This is so fun.  We get to argue ad nauseum about gay lifestyle and the evil, big, bad Mormon church that evilly plotted the demise of the poor, defenseless, loving, starry-eyed gay boys and girls that all they wanted to do is love one another.  

[JAHS]

 

So we have had a million threads on the pros and cons of SSM. A lot of viewpoints have been expressed. At times it has been very decisive. The courts have issued their verdict. The church has made their statement. Nothing is going to change on this issue. I would like to propose that we move on to other topics. Sure there will be other issues with church beliefs and the gay community. But on the issue of gay marriage it is pointless to continue to talk about it

So I make a proposal. I will never do another post concerning gay marriage. Who will join me. Who else is ready to move on. Let's hear from you

 

That might work for today, but there are new people joining this board every day.

[california boy]

This is so fun.  We get to argue ad nauseum about gay lifestyle and the evil, big, bad Mormon church that evilly plotted the demise of the poor, defenseless, loving, starry-eyed gay boys and girls that all they wanted to do is love one another.  

I don't know about the fun part.  It is more outrage.  But never the less there is a lot of truth in what you wrote.  While the church believes gay relationships are sinful.  Others do not.  And for them it is about loving one another in legal committed relationships.  They aren't so different from opposite sex couples.  Shocking huh.

[iWriteStuff]

Just flipping the coin a little bit here, but I wonder if there are any people out there who weren't/aren't members of the church whose respect for the church grew because of the principled stance it took against gay marriage? Seems more and more churches and institutions in general are switching teams as it becomes more favorable/popular/PC to support the rainbow lifestyle.

[sethpayne]

Seems more and more churches and institutions in general are switching teams as it becomes more favorable/popular/PC to support the rainbow lifestyle.

 

I think more and more folks are simply recognizing that the US Constitution requires equal treatment under the law.  

 

BTW -- what's the rainbow lifestyle.  Does it have something to do with My Little Pony?  Bronies?

[iWriteStuff]

BTW -- what's the rainbow lifestyle.  Does it have something to do with My Little Pony?  Bronies?

Nope, it's all about Skittles, actually.

 

I'm sure someone else has already approached this question, but do you suppose it would be possible to "extend equal treatment under the law" without changing the definition of marriage?