When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression--LDS Church moves their Same-Sex Marriage fight to Mexico

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You've completely ignored the point.  Someone on your side of the argument claimed that gay couples need a marriage license in order to stay faithful to each other, do you agree with that?  In my opinion, anyone, gay or straight, who feels that a marriage license is what controls their ability to stay faithful to their partner, shouldn't be in a relationship in the first place.

This is so backwards.

Gay people want to express their love and commit to each other in a legal ceremony just like hetero couples. Gay people want to benefit by all the same legal rights as hetero people. Gay people want to makes vows to their spouse and God, just like hetero people do. Gay people want to enjoy a life of physical and emotional intimacy with a partner, just like hetero people do.

And you are arguing against that. You would seem to prefer that gay people be quiet and stop seeking equal rights under the law because it would make you more comfortable.

I'm losing patience with the (c)Church for it's rhetoric and refusal to be reasonable and fair.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Please provide examples of these claims.  I disagree completely.

It wasn't my argument either, but I think you knew that. 

Quote

For nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints, feelings about divorce were mixed. President Brigham Young did not approve of men divorcing their wives, but women were relatively free to dissolve an unhappy marriage, especially a polygamous union (see Plural Marriage). Such divorces were handled in ecclesiastical courts because polygamous marriages were not considered legal by the government. Records of the number of divorces granted between 1847 and 1877 show a relatively high rate of divorce for polygamous marriages. This rate was high, not so much because polygamy was difficult, but because LDS society had not developed clear rules and expectations for the practice or the participants (Campbell and Campbell, p. 22).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Divorce

And of course there are several examples of polyandry in both Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's marriages, which seems quite similar to the open marriage concept. 

 

[T-Shirt]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

And of course there are several examples of polyandry in both Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's marriages, which seems quite similar to the open marriage concept. 

 

That doesn't make your point.  And your "open marriage" comment is a gross misrepresentation.  Par for the course.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

That doesn't make your point.  And your "open marriage" comment is a gross misrepresentation.  Par for the course.

I don't know. Isn't the 1840's Nauvoo polygamy/polyandry scene similar to the 2000's Utah County swinging scene?

Husbands sleep with other men's wives. Wives sleep with other women's husbands. Sounds swingy to me.

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm losing patience with the (c)Church for it's rhetoric and refusal to be reasonable and fair.

At least try to understand that the (c)Church sees only one form of marriage as good and any other form of marriage as evil.

You seem to want us to condone what we believe is evil just because you don't see any difference.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, DJBrown said:

And yet studies have shown that a very high percentage of same sex marriages and relationships are "open."  Meaning that the individuals in that relationship or marriage allow the other to have sexual relationships with people outside that marriage.  The percentage is very high- a majority.

And we hear from some of the "thinkers" in the same-sex marriage campaign that the true motive and end-game is to not just to change the definition of marriage, but move beyond marriage entirely.  Many in that movement see marriage as very primitive and enslaving.  They want society to move to a place where marriage does not exist.  

If you believe this is "lifting marriage," I have a bridge to sell you.

Every single same-sex marriage that involves children requires that those children be abandoned- either by his or her biological mother or father.  It is all about the adults and almost entirely ignores the interests of the children.  It is a broken argument to claim same-sex marriage stabilizes or strengthens the children involved.

Neither "openness" nor "monogamy" are requirements of civil marriage for either opposite-sex or same-sex couples.

And, besides many other groups that don't view absolute 1-man, 1-woman sexual monogamy as a requirement of marriage (including the founding prophets of the LDS church, by the way...) non-monogamous same-sex couples are not the only ones who don't view monogamy as a requirement for marriage.  There is a substantial segment of heterosexual, opposite-sex couples who also have sexually-open marriages:

Quote

The percentage of men and women actively involved in open marriages may be determined from data reported by Blumstein and Schwartz.^[1] Out of 3,498 married men, 903 had an agreement with their spouses allowing extramarital sex; out of these 903 married men with an agreement allowing extramarital sex, 24 percent (or 217 men) actually engaged in extramarital sex during the previous year. This means about 6 percent (i.e., 217 / 3498) of married men were actively involved in open marriages during the previous year. The number is only slightly less for married women. Out of 3,520 married women, 801 had an agreement with their spouses allowing extramarital sex; out of these 801 married women with an agreement allowing extramarital sex, 22 percent (or 176 women) actually engaged in extramarital sex during the previous year. This means about 5 percent (i.e., 176 / 3520) of married women were actively involved in open marriages during the previous year.

When we apply that 2 to 6% figure to the current estimated 60,000,000 currently-married opposite-sex couples, there anywhere from the same number to double the amount of "open" marriages between straight couples than there are gay ones (102,000 to 360,000 open straight marriages, as compared to the entire population of married same-sex couples, estimated at about 170,000).

Cultural norms encouraging monogamy among heterosexual marriages are understandable, as unbridled heterosexual intercourse can and often pro-creatively results in the creation of illegitimate children (that is, children who's parents aren't legally and personally committed).  And historically, many main-stream religions have traditionally played an important role in promoting monogamy as a way of promoting family stability and encouraging fathers and mothers to exclusively commit to one another and to raise any children that they procreate together (although it goes without saying in present company that Latter-day Saints haven't historically fit into that group passing the Manifesto now known as Official Declaration #1). 

As many have pointed out and I have acknowledged, same-sex couples will never be able to 'naturally' pro-create; to which I would add that same-sex activity will ALSO never result in procreation, unplanned pregnancies, or accidentally-illegitimate children.  Given the general indifference towards religions that are antagonistic towards ANY sanctioned expression of their same-sex desires, the availability of safe-sex measures that minimize risk of STDs, and perhaps the synergy between same-gendered masculine libidos, many gay men view non-monogamous sexual activities with others as simply recreational in nature and don't view them as a threat to their commitment or relationships.  However, a majority of gay women (lesbians) are often more monogamous than even their straight (opposite-sex counterparts), which I have presumed could be attributed the compatibility of the drives of shared feminine libidos.

In addition to all of the above, I would simply add that whether we are gay or straight or anything in-between, what other adults choose to do or not do within their marriages is entirely their own business, and none of mine nor yours.  The only marriage we each get to decide is our own.  THAT is "Freedom."

I would ask you to answer a CFR that "many in [the same-sex marriage campaign] movement see marriage as very primitive and enslaving" or that many "want society to move to a place where marriage does not exist."  I am aware of a few fringe individuals who have spoken along those lines, but NO major LGBT group shares or advocates for that view, and virtually NO gay person I know has a desire or mission to destroy marriage entirely.

As others have said, I disagree with the assertion that "every single same-sex marriage that involves children requires those children to be abandoned, either by their biological mother or father."   In fact, the facts demonstrate that assertion is patently false:

Quote

• There are 423,773 children in the U.S. foster care system; 114,556 of these children are available for adoption. Their birth parent’s legal rights have been permanently terminated and children are left without a family.
• More children become available for adoption each year than are adopted. In 2009, 69,947 children had parental rights terminated by the courts, yet only 57,466 were adopted.
• Children often wait three years or more to be adopted, move three or more times in foster care and often are separated from siblings. The average age of waiting children is 8 years old.

I'd also ask for a CFR that civil marriage for same-sex couples "is all about the adults and almost entirely ignores the interests of the children."  The amount of time and energy my husband and I recently invested in our will (including how to care for the interests of our children and grandchildren, after our deaths), let alone the commitments, energy, and family time we spend supporting all the activities of our kids and grandkids, belies the accuracy of your statement.  The REALITY of my life PROVES the truthfulness of the claim that "same-sex marriage stabilizes or strengthens the children involved."

Edited June 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

At least try to understand that the (c)Church sees only one form of marriage as good and any other form of marriage as evil.

You seem to want us to condone what we believe is evil just because you don't see any difference.

No. You don't understand at all.

I understand that the church sees SSM as evil. Apparently it is even more evil than h0m0sxual relations outside of marriage with multiple partners. I understand their position but I don't agree.

I don't need the church to condone SSM, just stop fighting against equal rights. What I DON'T understand is why the church feels it should prevent society at large from allowing equal rights to gay people in the form of marriage.

The church controls its doctrines, policies, and practices. It doesn't define the culture or the laws of the land. Thank God we don't live under a church theocracy.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, entering into adultery doesn't require a specific license to do so. I suppose it's a little different, but the transition from illegal to legal didn't seem to change too much. A vast majority of people still take a dim view of it:

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183455/once-taboo-behaviors-acceptable.aspx 

Does the gallup pole actually go back to before it was 'legal' (just an FYI-but it's still illegal in 17 states) so we can actually compare before and after a little easier?  I haven't clicked on the link yet so maybe that's more in-depth.

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am still single. If the gays steal all the marriages there might be none left for me!

I think the problem is that anyone in any kind of marriage is afraid their spouse will leave them for... The Nehor

*Spanish guitar trill*

Edited June 2, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

That doesn't make your point.  And your "open marriage" comment is a gross misrepresentation.  Par for the course.

An open marriage is where either spouse is free to take on additional partners, right?

Did you read the source I quoted?

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does the gallup pole actually go back to before it was 'legal' (just an FYI-but it's still illegal in 17 states) so we can actually compare before and after a little easier?  I haven't clicked on the link yet so maybe that's more in-depth.

No, I don't think so. Its utility is limited and doesn't totally back up my point, but as you can see there has been no statistically significant change in opinion in the last 15 years or so. 

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. You don't understand at all.

I understand that the church sees SSM as evil. Apparently it is even more evil than h0m0sxual relations outside of marriage with multiple partners. I understand their position but I don't agree.

I don't need the church to condone SSM, just stop fighting against equal rights. What I DON'T understand is why the church feels it should prevent society at large from allowing equal rights to gay people in the form of marriage.

The church controls its doctrines, policies, and practices. It doesn't define the culture or the laws of the land. Thank God we don't live under a church theocracy.

When we,  as members/leaders of the Church, speak out against same-sex sexual relations,  including same-sex marriages, we are doing so to tell people that those things are evil and should not be going on.  Because we believe those things are evil.  Even if those things are legal.

We are simply issuing a WARNING against people doing something that is evil.  Anytime anyone does it.  And anytime anyone is only thinking about doing it, or suggesting that it is an okay thing to be doing.

Same-sex sexual relations is just plain and simply evil and we want others to know they shouldn't be doing things that are evil.

Does that help you to understand why we feel we should tell the world what we believe on this issue. 

People can still choose to do things that are evil if they really want to, regardless of how many times we try to WARN them about doing things that are evil,  but that doesn't mean we should stop warning people against doing things that are evil while trying to encourage people to do righteous things, instead. 

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I came across two articles today and I was struck by the contrast:

 

 

 

"Free thought?" 

 

How is anyone's freedom to think being threatened by same-sex marriage...??

 

"Religious liberty"?
 

Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.

 

Now contrast the above tone and rhetoric with the thoughts brought up by this second article, which struck me as very applicable:

 

The second story is bothering me and I don't know why. I think it's the guys analogous story which to me is more indicative of mixed privilege than the simpler statement he's describing. 

His privileges:

- he was working at the restaurant for longer

- he had already an established, positive relationship with staff

- I'm assuming he didn't have much mark-ups on his past to rumor about

- he was used to getting more work and more money as "top dog" per se as server....this new person was a threat to his income as he did better (which Ironically plays right into the phrase he caught onto to validate himself).

The other man's areas of weakness:

- he had a prison record...or at least a rumored one

         and if he was in prison he also likely has a rough past that would greatly alter his behaviors to include dominance establishment as a way to insuring safety

- he had real obvious co-worker people skills problems 

- he likely had other mental/emotional problems...and considering he was waiting tables, he probably also didn't have much funds to address his deficits.

I'm not saying the second guy is excused from his escalation. But that the line itself feels more like a validation and rewrite to create a total picture of victim/oppressed and persecutor/privileged. So Ironically the story to me is a fairly good analogy to me of the discourse around mormons and SSM. Both groups have mixed privileges and areas of misunderstanding, oppression, stereotype, unfair treatment, etc. They're small minorities in numbers and their areas of influence and power differ. It's a mixed bag and both are arguing for concerns that are both legitimate. That said, I don't think that some of the things said by LDS are good or accurate at times. Particularly when they're speaking toward the character of another group. It's similar to when I see representations of mormons as rigid, bigoted figures...or ignorant non-christians. On the list of stereotypes since our inception, we've gotten a long score-list of negative archetyping as well. The sense of pluralism in beliefs about gay marriage that gives allowance for all to hold their beliefs when the narrative around SSM has followed a very moralizing tone at both ends of the spectrum, probably feels unlikely. With that many LDS sense that their place isn't just likely to bump down to a place of equality but to something that reinforces existing (or once existing) negative stereotype, demonizing, and questioning of their capacities because of the religion one adheres to. To me, many of these discussions on this board are a fairly good example of that. They're the sort that middle folk - like myself - tend to bow out quick, because the vitriol both ways isn't exactly helpful in forming meaningful dialogue. But it's a little isomorphic to some things that I've seen in the larger society as well.  

I'm not a psychic and I don't know how this will actually land in 30-40 years. I've mentioned somewhere before that it falls in narrative somewhere between abortion and segregation laws in terms of civil rights. One, has obviously drastically altered our moral compass in terms of personhood, capacities, etc, in society (segregation). Abortion is still a mixed bag in dialogue and personal beliefs. But I get both sides of concerns in this. I think some of the concerns in both are legitimate while others feel weak to me. 

 

That's all I have to say for now. I can't guarantee I'll participate in this thread much.

As an aside: Generally, I do think the phrase can definitely be accurate for most forms of privilege/oppression schema.

 

With luv,

BD 

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't need the church to condone SSM, just stop fighting against equal rights. What I DON'T understand is why the church feels it should prevent society at large from allowing equal rights to gay people in the form of marriage.

Really?  You don't understand why the Church would oppose the cultural normalization and societal acceptance of an evil?
Do you also wonder why the Church opposes abortion? 

And anyone who thinks the legalization of SSM won't have any impact on the beliefs and practices of the Church has their head firmly buried in the sand.

[DJBrown]

 "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all." - Dr. Meagan Tyler

"The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?" - David Vakalis
 

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.” - Michelangelo Signorile,

"And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ." - Ryan Conrad
 

"But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships." - Sally Kohn, Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

"Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens." - Alex Gabriel, 

"Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"-National Conference on Organized Resistance

 "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes." - David McGee
 

 "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." - Paul Varnell

"We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there." - Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,  London, 1971, revised 1978

 “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source] - Paula Ettelbrick, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist." - Masha Gessen,

http://www.truemarriageequality.com/12-shocking-quotes-reveal-the-hidden-homosexual-agenda---they-want-to-destroy-marriage-and-family-and-promote-homosexual-behaviour.html

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?  You don't understand why the Church would oppose the cultural normalization and societal acceptance of an evil?

It seems apparent he's suggesting that allowing others civil rights is not an evil.  It's obvious that's the fundamental disagreement here. 

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you also wonder why the Church opposes abortion? 

gay marriage isn't abortion.  They are two different topics.  Why can't someone understand the Church's opposition to one thing and yet not understand the Church's opposition to another? 

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And anyone who thinks the legalization of SSM won't have any impact on the beliefs and practices of the Church has their head firmly buried in the sand.

Well, then just to humor us who have their heads in the sand.  What impacts have occurred since SSM has been made legal in some places? 

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When we,  as members/leaders of the Church, speak out against same-sex sexual relations,  including same-sex marriages, we are doing so to tell people that those things are evil and should not be going on.  Because we believe those things are evil.  Even if those things are legal.

We are simply issuing a WARNING against people doing something that is evil.  Anytime anyone does it.  And anytime anyone is only thinking about doing it, or suggesting that it is an okay thing to be doing.

Same-sex sexual relations is just plain and simply evil and we want others to know they shouldn't be doing things that are evil.

Does that help you to understand why we feel we should tell the world what we believe on this issue. 

People can still choose to do things that are evil if they really want to, regardless of how many times we try to WARN them about doing things that are evil,  but that doesn't mean we should stop warning people against doing things that are evil while trying to encourage people to do righteous things, instead. 

Um...no. The church isn't merely WARNING people against a certain behavior. They are trying to make it illegal for them to be recognized as a family unit in marriage. A warning would be a PSA or talks against SSM, not continued political efforts to deny rights to the gay population.

It's cute that you think you have to explain the church's position on this. I understand it perfectly. It was my position for the vast majority of my life. I know how the church thinks because I thought the same way.

But they're not even warning against h0m0sxual relationships, only SSM. Repeatedly, it's against SSM. Those in SSM are apostates. Those who have relationships with multiple partners in uncommitted relationships are not apostate. That makes NO sense.

The church isn't WARNING anyone. It's trying to control the legal rights of people who aren't even members of the church.

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems apparent he's suggesting that allowing others civil rights is not an evil.  It's obvious that's the fundamental disagreement here.

Apparently.  Marriage is not a civil right, it is a religious union co-opted by the state.  Equal protection under the law may be a civil right, but creating laws concerning an item of religion doesn't make that item a civil right.

Quote

gay marriage isn't abortion.  They are two different topics.  Why can't someone understand the Church's opposition to one thing and yet not understand the Church's opposition to another?

Both are evils and great sins.  Both are now acceptable by a large segment of society.   Not as different as you'd like to pretend.

Quote

Well, then just to humor us who have their heads in the sand.  What impacts have occurred since SSM has been made legal in some places?

Well, the continual increase in percent of members of the Church who have been convinced that SSM is not a sin would be immediately evident.



 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Um...no. The church isn't merely WARNING people against a certain behavior. They are trying to make it illegal for them to be recognized as a family unit in marriage. A warning would be a PSA or talks against SSM, not continued political efforts to deny rights to the gay population.

It's cute that you think you have to explain the church's position on this. I understand it perfectly. It was my position for the vast majority of my life. I know how the church thinks because I thought the same way.

But they're not even warning against h0m0sxual relationships, only SSM. Repeatedly, it's against SSM. Those in SSM are apostates. Those who have relationships with multiple partners in uncommitted relationships are not apostate. That makes NO sense.

The church isn't WARNING anyone. It's trying to control the legal rights of people who aren't even members of the church.

 

I see it as a warning similar to most other warnings I am familiar with.   The kind of warning that usually takes the form of a DO NOT DO THAT message. 

I don't mean just a suggestion not to.  Or setting it up as just another option that would be considered cceptable. 

And yes we also issue warnings against all other sinful acts, like adultery and fornication and any other type of sexual relations outside of marriage between a husband and a wife. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I see it as a warning similar to most other warnings I am familiar with.   The kind of warning that usually takes the form of a DO NOT DO THAT message. 

I don't mean just a suggestion not to.  Or setting it up as just another option that would be considered cceptable. 

And yes we also issue warnings against all other sinful acts, like adultery and fornication and any other type of sexual relations outside of marriage between a husband and a wife. 

Except they are saying "we will not allow you to do that." Big difference.

So is the church fighting for legislation to outlaw adultery and fornication? Or is SSM that one key on the piano the church continues to incessantly play, over and over and over and over?

Your argument would be much stronger if the church was consistent in WARNING people by means of pushing for laws to outlaw all sins. Of course they don't do that because it would be silly. Guess what? It's also silly with regards to SSM and they will continue to pay a price for the silliness.  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Except they are saying "we will not allow you to do that." Big difference.

So is the church fighting for legislation to outlaw adultery and fornication? Or is SSM that one key on the piano the church continues to incessantly play, over and over and over and over?

Your argument would be much stronger if the church was consistent in WARNING people by means of pushing for laws to outlaw all sins. Of course they don't do that because it would be silly. Guess what? It's also silly with regards to SSM and they will continue to pay a price for the silliness.  

I think the reason we're seeing so much pop up on the issue of SSM now is because it pops up in the news media so often.   

If the specific issue of fornication, in general, popped up as often then we would be discussing that as often, too, I think. 

Or whatever else the issue happened to be.

At least we're not talking about pornography as much as we did in the past.  Hopefully we got that WARNING out enough to let others know how we really feel about that. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I think the reason we're seeing so much pop up on the issue of SSM now is because it pops up in the news media so often.   

If the specific issue of fornication, in general, popped up as often then we would be discussing that as often, too, I think. 

Or whatever else the issue happened to be.

At least we're not talking about pornography as much as we did in the past.  Hopefully we got that WARNING out enough to let others know how we really feel about that. 

And for all the talk about p0rnography I'm not aware of the church every making real efforts to make it illegal. I'm sure you're not saying that SSM is more prevalent than fornication are you?  I would wager that the issue of fornication is a much bigger issue in the daily lives of members and wards than SSM ever was.

[DJBrown]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. You don't understand at all.

I understand that the church sees SSM as evil. Apparently it is even more evil than h0m0sxual relations outside of marriage with multiple partners. I understand their position but I don't agree.

I don't need the church to condone SSM, just stop fighting against equal rights. What I DON'T understand is why the church feels it should prevent society at large from allowing equal rights to gay people in the form of marriage.

The church controls its doctrines, policies, and practices. It doesn't define the culture or the laws of the land. Thank God we don't live under a church theocracy.

Could it be that God's prophets recognize something about same-sex marriage that poses a greater threat to family, marriage, society, civilization than other sins?  Could it be that they see things that we do not?

[Ahab]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And for all the talk about p0rnography I'm not aware of the church every making real efforts to make it illegal. I'm sure you're not saying that SSM is more prevalent than fornication are you?  I would wager that the issue of fornication is a much bigger issue in the daily lives of members and wards than SSM ever was.

You may be too young to remember but both pornography and fornication used to be illegal, and the Church was and still is opposed to it becoming and being legal.  

Adultery, too.  It used to be illegal and the Church was and still is opposed to it becoming and being legal.

Now the most recent thing to change is society's view of same-sex sexual relationships.  It's still evil but society in general is more accepting of it and it won't be that much longer before it is considered to be just as acceptable in society as fornication and adultery, whoever does it, regardless of sex or gender.

It's a deterioration of society,  in general, and yet society is becoming more and more accepting of it, even thinking of it as progressive. 

Hard for me to see what could be even worse than all of this but I can see that things are and have been getting worse instead of better in society,  generally.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Ahab

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, DJBrown said:

Could it be that God's prophets recognize something about same-sex marriage that poses a greater threat to family, marriage, society, civilization than other sins?  Could it be that they see things that we do not?

Could be.

Could it be true that the leaders are products of their time and culture, which is anti-gay, but they are doing the best they can in making decisions? 

We know prophets promoted doctrines for over 100 years about race that have since been disavowed as false doctrines. Considering the level of harm caused to certain populations, I think the church needs to do better than assuming certain things to be doctrine because it fits with their cultural paradigm. I'd prefer the leaders not make the same mistakes of the past. But they seem determined to do so.

I expect more from the church and its leaders.