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

[Meadowchik]

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.  

 

For the record, I did post a few times on moving past the punditry about what happened with the LDS Church and same-sex marriage and moving on to managing differences now and for the future.  I kinda took it at a continuance of our disagreement on Five Solas' thread that you hooked on to the punditry aspect and not onto bridge-building. Would you like to start over with me?

 

Here's the bridges I posted:

 

First, in the bolded:

 

Of course 1 million seems extremely improbable. The Church is demanding enough already that so many people leaving over an old stance made unpopular by new public opinion would be strange.

That said, this generation is growing up with a completely different popular attitudes about GLBT lives. I think it was Time magazine several years ago that published the headline "Gay is the New Straight," reflecting the cultural image of gays fitting into the 2 parent, 2 kids, house, and a picket fence American ideal.

What was once easy for some to dismiss as marginal and strange is your brother or your sister (or self) just wanting to love and live a normal life like you (or others) do.

So the command of God, while still hard for people who are GLBT, is now harder for those who are not. Before it was relatively easier to process, now it isn't.

IMO, the question comes down to what God wants of us. There are those who believe God approves their path which includes a homosexual relationship. There are those who believe God requires something mutually exclusive of that, to continue progressing eternally.

I am in favor of doing all we can to nurture loving relationships among those with these seemingly divergent beliefs. Love as we know we are to, and hope that we'll all be more ready for correcting light in the ways we need it.

 

 

 

Next, a big example of a gay man holding on to the Church despite all and finding wealth within:

 

A different kind of anecdote:

A man married to a man, excommunicated but still feeling spiritual treasure to be found in the Church and remaining active in his ward.

You can read more about John Gustav-Wrathall on his youngstranger.blogspot and the No More Strangers forum, plus hear him testify of the richness of the gospel he still enjoys in his life, despite not being a member in standing in the Church. He is also the Senior VP for Affirmation.

I've had some good conversations with John and have learned a lot from him.

 

  

When one is inspired and motivated by divine love (charity), he or she is always does what is in the ETERNAL best interests of himself and his fellow man. The confusion on this issue is generated when individuals confuse lower forms of human love and affection with that highest form of divine love we call the pure love of Christ. If the longterm prospects for true happiness can be secured only by keeping and obeying the law of chastity, then those who truly love their fellow man will have the courage to inform same sex attracted individuals that while breaking the law of chastity may bring some temporal satisfaction, in the long run will it undermine their chances for receiving an eternal weight of glory and the deepest forms of love and happiness in the eternal world. In a recent General Conference address, Elder Oaks indicated that same sex attraction is a manifestation of the fallen nature -- just as are the temptations to commit fornication and adultery -- but these very real and often gravely consequential human drives will dissipate as the dew with the dawning of the resurrection. In the eternal scheme of things, there is no divine love nor wisdom in encouraging others to build life structures that will only be torn down in the end. It is sacrifice, not giving in to the will and desires of the natural man that will bring forth the blessings of heaven.

 

Lastly, my response to Bobbieaware's post (above):

 

 

That would be my personal take on it, pretty much, both as in understanding prophetic counsel and also my own pondering.

So let's zoom in on it.

Imagine the unmarried man and woman, living together, taking the discussions, praying about the gospel, seeking God's inspiration. For them, perhaps the only outer change required would be marriage, if they want to stay together and join the Church.

Yet, for a same-sex couple, one seeking this charity and pure love of Christ, their choice to become baptised would require them to dissolve their relationship. It could mean major traumatic changes and breaking promises.

So, understandably, that moment of decision can be much longer and complicated for those in ss relationships wanting to be part of the Church.

How should we treat them in the meantime?

 

 

 

I'd be thrilled if we could start off on a better footing in our interactions!

Edited October 19, 2015 by Meadowchik

[sethpayne]

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?

 

IMO, as our society is currently structured, no.  There are many legal benefits tied to the formal recognition of marriage.  Several states tried domestic partnerships but that didn't work out so well because marriage is simply interwoven -- even if not explicitly -- into so many aspects of our legal lives.  Marriage significantly impacts taxation, Social Security, estate management etc.  Because of that, trying to create anything that is "separate but equal" just doesn't work in practice.  It sounds great.  But it just isn't realistic.

 

[Daniel2]

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?

 

I agree with Sethpayne's response.

 

You are correct that many people already approached that question.  In fact, it really was at the heart of many of the court rulings leading up to Obergefell at SCOTUS.

 

The answer consistently was that civil unions--an attempt at a "separate but equal" legal contract for same-sex couples--were inherently unequal.  Equality requires that same-sex couples be granted the benefits, responsibilities, and title of the civil contract called "marriage."

 

As for the article that is the subject of this thread: while the article contains some truth, the author's exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about the church's membership loss are truly unfortunate, as such falsehoods undermine the rest of the article's more valid points.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[KevinG]

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

 

Especially Russians selling viagra...

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with Sethpayne's response.

 

You are correct that many people already approached that question.  In fact, it really was at the heart of many of the court rulings leading up to Obergefell at SCOTUS.

 

The answer consistently was that civil unions--an attempt at a "separate but equal" legal contract for same-sex couples--were inherently unequal.  Equality requires that same-sex couples be granted the benefits, responsibilities, and title of the civil contract called "marriage."

 

As for the article that is the subject of this thread: while the article contains some truth, the author's exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about the church's membership loss are truly unfortunate, as such falsehoods undermine the rest of the article's more valid points.

 

I think there is good resolution here. Make them all legally recognized civil contracts, and let churches, mosques, kingdom halls, synagogues, temples, shrines. what have you, do any religious ceremony they want. It gets the government out of a religious ceremony, and lets the religious have any ceremony they want.

[Tony Frank]

I agree with Sethpayne's response.

 

You are correct that many people already approached that question.  In fact, it really was at the heart of many of the court rulings leading up to Obergefell at SCOTUS.

 

The answer consistently was that civil unions--an attempt at a "separate but equal" legal contract for same-sex couples--were inherently unequal.  Equality requires that same-sex couples be granted the benefits, responsibilities, and title of the civil contract called "marriage."

 

As for the article that is the subject of this thread: while the article contains some truth, the author's exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about the church's membership loss are truly unfortunate, as such falsehoods undermine the rest of the article's more valid points.

 

The logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd would dictate that 3 heterosexual couples who get together for orgies should be able to be married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men. It is about group sex couples having “rights as humans to be able to equally marry” as single partner couples do, and “it’s about benefits and adoption rights.” They just “want equal rights” and “equal protection.” This is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words they use.

 

Marriage between a man and a woman was given to us by God long before the United States government became involved. If gay marriage is a “human right,” it cannot be granted by the United States government. Those who insist that it can must be willing to accept the corollary that human rights can be denied the United States government.

 

The logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd would dictate that 3 heterosexual couples should be able to be married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men.

 

To use the same language and reasoning of the pro-gay marriage crowd, it is about group marriage couples having “rights as humans to be able to equally marry” as single partner couples do, and “it’s about benefits and adoption rights.”

 

They just “want equal rights and privileges.” It is “about family.”

 

This is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words that pro-gay marriage people have used in their public discourse.

 

If 3 heterosexual couples consider themselves married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men (with all the ‘benefits’ of marriage), and they go around proclaiming their orientation/preference for group sex, then people have every right to discriminate against them. People should have a “right” to discriminate against someone who openly touts their immoral behavior.

[KevinG]

I sometimes wonder why people are so eager to turn over power to the government that should reside in the people and churches?

 

The same government that can dictate what marriage is comprised of, can take away your favorite flavor of morality.  See the LDS Church and polygamy for a great example.

 

Divorcing government benefits and legal protections from religious marriage tests would benefit everyone and allow private citizens and groups to define their morality for themselves.

[Meadowchik]

I sometimes wonder why people are so eager to turn over power to the government that should reside in the people and churches?

The same government that can dictate what marriage is comprised of, can take away your favorite flavor of morality. See the LDS Church and polygamy for a great example.

Divorcing government benefits and legal protections from religious marriage tests would benefit everyone and allow private citizens and groups to define their morality for themselves.

I've never understood the argument that God owns marriage in the first place. Yes, if God exists, that's a given. But it's irrelevant to any nation founded on religious freedom.

Marriage is arguably the oldest form of government, invented in a time when religion and science and logic were all mixed in one toolbox.

We cannot get government out of marriage or it wouldn't be marriage, but of course marriage should be accessible to all regardless of religion, natural result of religious freedom.

[Tony Frank]

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?

 

“Equal treatment” for people who insist society must condone their sexual behavior?

 

What two people do in the privacy of the home is their business, and what kind of sex a person likes to have does not belong in the public domain. It is their business if they are gay. And if this is a case of “equality for everyone,” then should heterosexuals be allowed to share with their employer and everyone else in society what kind of sex they like to have, and do so without expecting repercussions for openly sharing the kind of sex they like to have?

 

How about people with foot fetishes? Should they be able to show up for a job interview and tell their prospective employer about feet playing a role in their sexual behavior?

 

And what about sado-masochist couples? Should a restaurant be forced to serve them when they are sitting at a table and talking about their sexual proclivity?

 

How about a married heterosexual couple that engages in perfectly normal sex? Does a store owner have a right to tell them to leave if they go into a store and talk about having normal sex using the “standard missionary position”?

 

People who say they are gay are stating what kind of sex they like to have. Are gay people supposed to be special, so special that they can openly tell people what kind of sex they like to have and expect people not to discriminate against them?

 

Satan wants society to condone all immoral behavior, and he is using the gay issue as a wedge.

[Calm]

We cannot get government out of marriage or it wouldn't be marriage, but of course marriage should be accessible to all regardless of religion, natural result of religious freedom.

 

 

The problem is that marriage as we have it now mixes religious and government needs.  This isn't a huge problem when government and the religion of the vast majority were often the same or at least working hand in hand.  It is a problem for a country that has multiple religions that see marriage in a variety of ways as well as the government is not supposed to be promoting any specific form of religious faith or lack thereof.

[bluebell]

We cannot get government out of marriage or it wouldn't be marriage, but of course marriage should be accessible to all regardless of religion, natural result of religious freedom.

 

I think we could.  If the government simply provided civil unions, and churches did marriages, it would be doable.  Polygamists have been doing it for decades, and logistically it seems to work fine.   

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we could.  If the government simply provided civil unions, and churches did marriages, it would be doable.  Polygamists have been doing it for decades, and logistically it seems to work fine.   

A compelling reason for having government in "the marriage business" in the first place is to apply the force of law to the protection and nurturing of children that are the product of marriage.

 

Over time, with all the clamoring for "no-fault" divorce laws, convenience and desires of the marriage partners and the changing of the very definition of marriage, the needs of the children seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

[jkwilliams]

I think we could.  If the government simply provided civil unions, and churches did marriages, it would be doable.  Polygamists have been doing it for decades, and logistically it seems to work fine.

The problem, of course, is that we have built up a complicated set of marriage laws over thousands of years. It makes no sense to throw out all that legal precedent simply because people dislike what the law calls a marriage.

[Meadowchik]

I think we could. If the government simply provided civil unions, and churches did marriages, it would be doable. Polygamists have been doing it for decades, and logistically it seems to work fine.

No, polygamists have not, they've been living outside the law, so the legal logistics have not been tested in their case.

[california boy]

For the record, I did post a few times on moving past the punditry about what happened with the LDS Church and same-sex marriage and moving on to managing differences now and for the future.  I kinda took it at a continuance of our disagreement on Five Solas' thread that you hooked on to the punditry aspect and not onto bridge-building. Would you like to start over with me?

 

Here's the bridges I posted:

 

First, in the bolded:

 

 

Next, a big example of a gay man holding on to the Church despite all and finding wealth within:

 

Lastly, my response to Bobbieaware's post (above):

 

 

 

I'd be thrilled if we could start off on a better footing in our interactions!

 

I would love to stsrt over.  I think we had an interesting discussion back and forth before I got sidetracked.  You brought up some very interesting topics.  So let's get back to some of the questions you brought up.

 

First I would like to comment on the changing attitudes people have towards gays and especially the overwhelming difference of the younger generation.  Things have changed radically since the 50's and 60's.   People believed the Bible was the Word of God, literally.  Meaning that what was written in that book came to prophets, which wrote it down, and was profound truth.  But we know now, through science that there are many things in the Bible that historically just never happened.  The earth was not created in 6 days.  Adam and Eve were not the first humans.  Man started long before 6,000 years ago.  There was not a universal flood, The sun did not stop in the sky.  These and many other issues are strongly disputable.  What was once truth, now is doubtful for a lot of people.  Yeah, I get many literally believe every single word in the Bible, but that is what is changing.  A lot of people can no longer accept every word of the Bible as coming from God.  Most likely, a lot of the Bible was written by fallable men influenced by their time and environment.  Over 7.5 million people have left religion since 2012  That is an astounding number.  Why?  I believe that people can no longer trust religion is a place to find truth.  I also believe many people find religion to be devisive and political.  Many believe that churches have lost the cause of charity, caring for others, kindness and love.  Instead dogma has taken over.  They are finding spirituality outside of organized religion.

 

What does this all have to do with gays?  Well alot.  First, younger people don't trust the verses in the Bible condemning gay relationships.  Second, they see gay people are exactly like hey are except they are attracted to the same sex.  As the time article points out, gays are getting married, creating families and putting up picket fences.  When you have a brother, sister, uncle, father, cousin best friend, or whatever, that is gay, and you see they are just as much full of love and ilve lives similar to yours, it is hard to see any evil in their relationships.  The conclusion they have drawn?  Who cares if someone is gay.  Treat them just as you would any other person.  It has become a non issue no matter how hard religion stands on their soapboxes condemning their relationships.  When you loose trust in religion, what they say matters less and less.

 

As far as a gay man finding happiness in the LDS church, i say why wouldn't he.  There is much good in the church.  Some people really aren't that concerned what others think of them or their relationships.  That is their problem.  I think he will keep attending as long as he feels it is enriching his life.

 

Last.  I think your response to Bobbie is spot on.  There are numerous reasons why the church is not a healthy place for a gay person.  You have listed a very important one.

 

You kinda gave me a lot to respond to in one post.  If you would like me to answer any of these questions more completely or clarify any of them. I would be glad to do so.

[bluebell]

No, polygamists have not, they've been living outside the law, so the legal logistics have not been tested in their case.

 

What i mean is, polygamists have marriages that they believe are binding and they don't need the government to sanction it in order to view it as a marriage.  

 

Just like in places like Great Britain, where LDS sealings in temples are not sanctioned by the government or legally binding marriages.  The church works around that by having members get a civil marriage first and then doing the sealing later.  The fact that the government does not view the sealing as a legal marriage does not impact it's validity in the eyes of the people who are taking part.  People who are sealed in England view their relationship as the same as those who are sealed in the U.S.

 

Government doesn't own the concept of marriage, and if all governments failed and ceased to exist, marriage could, and still would, exist.

 

A compelling reason for having government in "the marriage business" in the first place is to apply the force of law to the protection and nurturing of children that are the product of marriage.

 

 

 I don't see why that would have to be any different under civil unions.

 

The problem, of course, is that we have built up a complicated set of marriage laws over thousands of years. It makes no sense to throw out all that legal precedent simply because people dislike what the law calls a marriage.

 

I'm not sure why the laws would have to change just because the name did.  

[california boy]

“Equal treatment” for people who insist society must condone their sexual behavior?

 

What two people do in the privacy of the home is their business, and what kind of sex a person likes to have does not belong in the public domain. It is their business if they are gay. And if this is a case of “equality for everyone,” then should heterosexuals be allowed to share with their employer and everyone else in society what kind of sex they like to have, and do so without expecting repercussions for openly sharing the kind of sex they like to have?

 

How about people with foot fetishes? Should they be able to show up for a job interview and tell their prospective employer about feet playing a role in their sexual behavior?

 

And what about sado-masochist couples? Should a restaurant be forced to serve them when they are sitting at a table and talking about their sexual proclivity?

 

How about a married heterosexual couple that engages in perfectly normal sex? Does a store owner have a right to tell them to leave if they go into a store and talk about having normal sex using the “standard missionary position”?

 

People who say they are gay are stating what kind of sex they like to have. Are gay people supposed to be special, so special that they can openly tell people what kind of sex they like to have and expect people not to discriminate against them?

 

Satan wants society to condone all immoral behavior, and he is using the gay issue as a wedge.

 

Gay marriage has been decided.  Get over it.  Your rants are not going to change anything or anyone's mind, especially not the courts.  They have heard it all before.  So have we.

 

(How's that?  Am I doing better?)

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

Cal, we have long since agree to disagree.  You are talking about two different contexts.  I have never like the concept of marriage being managed by the state.  Marriage is a religious rite or ordinance and should remain so.  I never understood the restrictions or legal benefits reserved for married people that was complained about most:  home ownership, insurance benefits, pension benefits, hospital visitation, and other similar.  All of these could have been provided on a more equitable basis without any need to redefine family or marriage.  If governments need to manage social unions than provide the licence for social unions.  If those in a social union are being denied social benefits then change those laws.

 

I remain convinced that the entire argument for gay marriage had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.  The main objective and overriding focus of the entire process is to force the entire population to accept the gay lifestyle as normal, appropriate, and healthy i.e. that it is not sinful, wrong, or unhealthy for society at large.  

 

If the "rights" were what was desired there were too many for easier ways to obtain those benefits than the sole pursuit of gay marriage.  This is all moot, gay marriage is legalized.  All citizens have been forced to accept it and will continue to be forced to accept it regardless of their religious convictions, conscious, or anything else.  It is either accept it or have the government put you out of business and destroy your livelihood.  

 

I believe the nation will rue the day that this occurred.  It will be interesting how morals, or the abdication of morals, evolves in society.  We will live and learn together. 

[Meadowchik]

I would love to stsrt over. I think we had an interesting discussion back and forth before I got sidetracked. You brought up some very interesting topics. So let's get back to some of the questions you brought up.

First I would like to comment on the changing attitudes people have towards gays and especially the overwhelming difference of the younger generation. Things have changed radically since the 50's and 60's. People believed the Bible was the Word of God, literally. Meaning that what was written in that book came to prophets, which wrote it down, and was profound truth. But we know now, through science that there are many things in the Bible that historically just never happened. The earth was not created in 6 days. Adam and Eve were not the first humans. Man started long before 6,000 years ago. There was not a universal flood, The sun did not stop in the sky. These and many other issues are strongly disputable. What was once truth, now is doubtful for a lot of people. Yeah, I get many literally believe every single word in the Bible, but that is what is changing. A lot of people can no longer accept every word of the Bible as coming from God. Most likely, a lot of the Bible was written by fallable men influenced by their time and environment. Over 7.5 million people have left religion since 2012 That is an astounding number. Why? I believe that people can no longer trust religion is a place to find truth. I also believe many people find religion to be devisive and political. Many believe that churches have lost the cause of charity, caring for others, kindness and love. Instead dogma has taken over. They are finding spirituality outside of organized religion.

What does this all have to do with gays? Well alot. First, younger people don't trust the verses in the Bible condemning gay relationships. Second, they see gay people are exactly like hey are except they are attracted to the same sex. As the time article points out, gays are getting married, creating families and putting up picket fences. When you have a brother, sister, uncle, father, cousin best friend, or whatever, that is gay, and you see they are just as much full of love and ilve lives similar to yours, it is hard to see any evil in their relationships. The conclusion they have drawn? Who cares if someone is gay. Treat them just as you would any other person. It has become a non issue no matter how hard religion stands on their soapboxes condemning their relationships. When you loose trust in religion, what they say matters less and less.

As far as a gay man finding happiness in the LDS church, i say why wouldn't he. There is much good in the church. Some people really aren't that concerned what others think of them or their relationships. That is their problem. I think he will keep attending as long as he feels it is enriching his life.

Last. I think your response to Bobbie is spot on. There are numerous reasons why the church is not a healthy place for a gay person. You have listed a very important one.

You kinda gave me a lot to respond to in one post. If you would like me to answer any of these questions more completely or clarify any of them. I would be glad to do so.

I wonder how engaged most are or were in tgeir religious community, because I would worry about people cut off from the extended family of sorts that a church/religion often provides.

As much as the internet and the information age is crucial to my daily life, I worry about how the instantaneous perks of it will see us trading short-term gratfication for long-term depth, be it in relationships or info consumption.

What about you? Are you seeking ties with the Church, trying to build bridges? Forget the question if it's too personal. I love to hear the examples of families and church families (ie wards, etc) carefully sticking together and including GLBT people in their circles and wish I could offer a space for anyone who doesn't receive that care.

[Meadowchik]

What i mean is, polygamists have marriages that they believe are binding and they don't need the government to sanction it in order to view it as a marriage.

Just like in places like Great Britain, where LDS sealings in temples are not sanctioned by the government or legally binding marriages. The church works around that by having members get a civil marriage first and then doing the sealing later. The fact that the government does not view the sealing as a legal marriage does not impact it's validity in the eyes of the people who are taking part. People who are sealed in England view their relationship as the same as those who are sealed in the U.S.

Government doesn't own the concept of marriage, and if all governments failed and ceased to exist, marriage could, and still would, exist.

I don't see why that would have to be any different under civil unions.

I'm not sure why the laws would have to change just because the name did.

Our church requires the legality to validate marriage in this life.

If all governments ceased, there would either be no more marriage or marriage would be the basic kernal of remaining government.

Think about it: marriage basically says the spouses combine as one legal entity, that they are parents to one another's children and that they share home and property.

Do you see government in that? Because it's there.

[busybee]

Think about it: marriage basically says the spouses combine as one legal entity, that they are parents to one another's children and that they share home and property.

 

I feel sad for you if that's all marriage is to you.

[canard78]

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.

What's so sad about the hours of angst and dollars of campaigning spent on Mormons is that there are so many more worthy causes that would benefit from this passion, time and money.

One day soon I hope that someone in the leadership will wake up and realise that they are completely wasting their time on a matter that is none of their business and such greater needs in the world than stopping a gay couple getting married.

Move on, you've lost the battle. Meanwhile wars rage and children starve. Go and do something actual of merit and value.

[Meadowchik]

I feel sad for you if that's all marriage is to you.

Why would you think "that's all marriage is" to me? Can we have a discussion about what marriage means in society at large, collectively, as a public institution?

That, essentially, is at the heart of marriage...it's not just a private and/or divine union, it's a public commitment. It's being willing and able to say, "Hey, world, as far as you and we are concerned, my spouse and I are one."

There are oceans' depths in that facet alone, it shouldn't be underestimated.

[california boy]

I wonder how engaged most are or were in tgeir religious community, because I would worry about people cut off from the extended family of sorts that a church/religion often provides.

As much as the internet and the information age is crucial to my daily life, I worry about how the instantaneous perks of it will see us trading short-term gratfication for long-term depth, be it in relationships or info consumption.

What about you? Are you seeking ties with the Church, trying to build bridges? Forget the question if it's too personal. I love to hear the examples of families and church families (ie wards, etc) carefully sticking together and including GLBT people in their circles and wish I could offer a space for anyone who doesn't receive that care.

 

People find different ties that bind them to groups in the community.  I certainly have.  Religion used to be the main part of that community.  It is no longer for a lot of people.  I do a a lot of volunteer work for the Senior Center.  They have become a community that I connect with even though I am younger than most all of them.  They are really wonderful people.  I can serve them right along with my boyfriend and they are nothing but grateful for the help that I give them.  I am involved in the arts and have connected with a community of fellow artists.  I do a lot of bike riding, and have connected with others that love to bike.  I did the San Francisco to Los Angeles Lifecycle ride for 3 years.  Loved it.  Loved the support communities all along the route showed the riders, and loved the opportunity to be a part of raising millions of dollars to fight AIDS.  All of these groups are very supportive, inclusive groups and add a positive enrichment to my life.  

 

I think when i was active in the church, it was my main community.  I felt needed and useful there.  I could provide service to others on a regular basis.  When I came out as gay, that community really didn't want to include me much any more.  So I looked elsewhere.  It doesn't mean that I don't have a fondness for members of the church.  But I have moved on.  

 

Several months ago I attended all three sunday meetings with my brother.  I hadn't been for a while.  I was looking forward to reconnecting.  Sacrament was nice.  I enjoyed the service.  Then Sunday school, not so pleasant.  The instructor talked about corrupt judges in the Book of Mormon.  He then related how recent ruling on gay marriage was a sign in our time of corrupt judges.  Yeah kinda put me off.  Not everyone thinks the supreme court decision was corrupt.  Just another example of how religion has become political.   Then we gathered for priesthood.  All the priesthood gathered together for general announcements prior to breaking into quorums.  One guy made the announcement about the Scout Sustaining Membership drive.  Then he made the statement about how the gays were attacking the scouting program and they needed the wards support.  Sorry but I didn't see it that way.  BSA leadership made their own decision.  They already had the legal right to discriminate, they chose to allow individual groups to decide.  Yeah the church has become a not very welcoming community for anyone who is gay.  I have started to care less and less for the church.  It didn't bother me much.  I have moved on.  It certainly made my brother uncomfortable.  Probably not for others as well even when they are not gay.  But, there are a lot of people who eat that stuff up.  And they show up every week faithful as can be.  The church obviously enriches their lives.  Thats fine with me as well.  I am glad they have found a community that supports their beliefs and goals.

[jkwilliams]

I feel sad for you if that's all marriage is to you.

My marriage is much more than that, but we are talking about marriage as a legal term.