MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

So you're not stepping out of the loop as you suggested "we" do. OK! You are not patiently waiting to see how this plays out after all, despite having found found a happy and fulfilling life outside the gospel, and not having any reason to care about what the Church does. What kind of perspective is it to speak out of both sides of the mouth?

CV I am gay.  I don't live in Utah.  I was active in the church for most of my life.  I still respect the church and think it is a good place for many to be in.  I however would never recommend a gay member stay in the church if they wanted my opinion.  I do have a wonderful life that would not have been possible if I had stayed in the church.I have an amazing companion that I share a very rich and full life with.  

I am still very interested in what the church is doing and especially when it comes to how they treat gays.  Since I am no longer a member of the church, how the church treats gays has no impact on my life.  I also firmly believe that the church can have any doctrine and policy it wants towards gays.  It is their church, their beliefs, not mine.

So why do I comment on things?  Why am I even on this board?  Two main reasons.  I am interested in how members of the church feel and deal with some of the decisions church leaders make.  And second, because I feel like I can add a perspective of how both gay members and those outside the church feel about some of the policies the church institutes.  I completely understand if you don't find my opinions worth considering.  Fortunately you can put me on ignore and you never see them.  But if you are interested in what I have to say, I hope you will consider my point of view and respond no matter how they fit in with what you believe.

Read my comments about the use of the term SSA.  I really don't care if the church keeps using that term.  I am not demanding that the church stop using such an offensive term.  But I am willing to try and explain how offensive that term is to the gay community.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I chose not to take offense at your unveiled attacks on me. See how easy that is? 

Because you and a handful of ex-religious gays have created a narrative where a benign statement of fact has been transformed into an offensive insult, does not make it so. You continue to speak for the "gay community" which we are told is diverse, yet apparently all have the same opinions when convenient.

CB you are actually the one behind the times here. Now that marriage equality is settled, researchers are actually starting to investigate the reality of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. Mainstream researchers and it is widely accepted that identity is not directly correlated with attraction.  

Yet some (a subset of the 1.7 % of self identified gays and lesbians) are still stuck in a mentality where they interpret everything and anything from a perspective of outraged, persecuted victims.  This does nothing to advance our cause. 

Thanks for not taking offense to anything I said directed at you.  None was intended.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

ban on blacks receiving the priesthood and temple ordinances

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Luckily in time we all realized the priesthood ban's explanations were, though told to us to be revelation direct commandments from God and all that, were not true, were made up and yet were said in absolute terms to be from God.  This feels similar to me

Under the ban, there was no doctrine that there is sin in skin color or lineage, and under the Church’s teachings on marriage, there is no doctrine that there is sin in orientation.

The ban was not directed at sin, but at skin color, and the marriage covenant is in line with God’s plan, irrespective of the spouses’ orientation.

There was a “skin test” in the former; there is no “orientation test” in the latter. The “skin test” was at worst an application of disavowed theories (for those that held them; we really do not know the rationale per the “Race and Priesthood” article). There never were similar theories (a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that “mixed-orientation” marriages are a sin; or that orientation makes anyone inferior in any way to anyone else).

The revelation lifting the ban (and dropping the “skin test”) was not about determining true doctrine or the acceptability of being black. But with marriage, there is no need for a revelation to drop an “orientation test” that doesn’t exist! And like the ban, there is no a question on determining true doctrine on orientation or the acceptability of orientation.

The lifting of the priesthood ban does not help the case for same-gender marriage, but shows that there is none.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

No offense CV75, but I frequently have a difficult time following your arguments. 

None taken!

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

It does not pathologize. It accurately describes. It is a technical term used outside of the Church in academic research as well.  It is used to be inclusive of experiences and not as an identity. Please show me any reference on the new site that uses it as an identity rather than a description of an experience. (Not counting where  individuals choose to adopt that add their own identity.)

 

Many feel that it does pathologize.  And I try to respect their wishes of how they choose to identify.

The new LDS.org site seems to be embracing the use of "gay" rather than SSA as an identity.  That's a great change and I think I've said as much.

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The proclamation on the Family does not address homosexuality at all.  It does not take into account exceptions. 

?????

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose . . .  THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife . . .  WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed . . .  THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity . . . Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I know that advocates of gay marriage within the Church say that none of this applies to gay marriage, because when legally married, they are married, too. Putting aside the obvious (the clear language making it clear that only male/female marriage "counts" in the eyes of God, the Church, and the PotF), don't most gay marriage advocates complain that the PotF was issued to bolster the Church's legal claims in opposing gay marriage in Hawaii? Under this understanding, the PotF's very existence "addresses homosexuality."

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

?????

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose . . .  THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife . . .  WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed . . .  THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity . . . Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I know that advocates of gay marriage within the Church say that none of this applies to gay marriage, because when legally married, they are married, too. Putting aside the obvious (the clear language making it clear that only male/female marriage "counts" in the eyes of God, the Church, and the PotF), don't most gay marriage advocates complain that the PotF was issued to bolster the Church's legal claims in opposing gay marriage in Hawaii? Under this understanding, the PotF's very existence "addresses homosexuality."

 

I agree with Stemelbow.  You are reading into the Proclamation.  It doesn't say that "only" man-woman marriage counts.  And it doesn't address homosexuality.  It ignores it.

I believe that the PotF was issued to bolster the Church's legal claims in opposing gay marriage as it provides a clear doctrinal basis as to marriage being a matter of religious belief and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

CV I am gay.  I don't live in Utah.  I was active in the church for most of my life.  I still respect the church and think it is a good place for many to be in.  I however would never recommend a gay member stay in the church if they wanted my opinion.  I do have a wonderful life that would not have been possible if I had stayed in the church.I have an amazing companion that I share a very rich and full life with.  

I am still very interested in what the church is doing and especially when it comes to how they treat gays.  Since I am no longer a member of the church, how the church treats gays has no impact on my life.  I also firmly believe that the church can have any doctrine and policy it wants towards gays.  It is their church, their beliefs, not mine.

So why do I comment on things?  Why am I even on this board?  Two main reasons.  I am interested in how members of the church feel and deal with some of the decisions church leaders make.  And second, because I feel like I can add a perspective of how both gay members and those outside the church feel about some of the policies the church institutes.  I completely understand if you don't find my opinions worth considering.  Fortunately you can put me on ignore and you never see them.  But if you are interested in what I have to say, I hope you will consider my point of view and respond no matter how they fit in with what you believe.

Read my comments about the use of the term SSA.  I really don't care if the church keeps using that term.  I am not demanding that the church stop using such an offensive term.  But I am willing to try and explain how offensive that term is to the gay community.

It seemingly impacts your life because you have such a vested interest in the subject… unless such conversation is how you while away the hours. In either case, it sends a mixed message to call on everyone to wait and not engage in the very “loop” in which you continue to engage, regardless of your motive.

Say what you will about the gay community (as if there is one, homogeneous community that you accurately represent); I've seen a good deal of variation between individuals' tolerance levels.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I agree with Stemelbow.  You are reading into the Proclamation.  It doesn't say that "only" man-woman marriage counts.  And it doesn't address homosexuality.  It ignores it.

What would any of the Brethren say, hypothetically, if you could ask him and he answered you? What do you think?  

That's the problem with the "wrong side of history" crowd. They can insist all they want that the PotF doesn't say this or leaves enough wiggle room for that, but what matters is what the overwhelmingly conservative Church leadership and active membership think it says (and I have to say that they have clear language on their side). I know that the "wrong side of history" people insist that there will be a tidal wave of change in a few generations leading to a massive liberalization of thought and belief regarding liberal social issues, but I don't think so.

The ones who overwhelmingly are called as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, area authorities, seventies, and apostles are very much of the same conservative mindset. The hope expressed by "wrong siders" is that demographic change will lead to progressive high ranking church leaders, eventually, but I think the Church's culture is uniquely insulated against that. For one thing, it has a persecution complex that will be reinforced, not weakened, by societal rejection.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with Stemelbow.  You are reading into the Proclamation.  It doesn't say that "only" man-woman marriage counts.  And it doesn't address homosexuality.  It ignores it.

I believe that the PotF was issued to bolster the Church's legal claims in opposing gay marriage as it provides a clear doctrinal basis as to marriage being a matter of religious belief and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.

I'm not sure I follow your argument here.

The proclamation definitely speaks against hmosxuality even if it isn't named explicitly. " sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." I think the entire point of the proclamation is to discredit gay marriage and give the church a doctrinal basis upon which it can argue in the courts. That seems to agree with your second point.

The problem with the proclamation being used as an authority to denounce SSM is its origin, not its content. The content is anti-SSM but where does that content come from?

Is it a revelation from God? Maybe. If so, there must be some kind a story about how it was received, but I don't recall ever seeing that. And if it's a revelation, why hasn't it been canonized? Are they afraid to divulge the authorship of the proclamation?

Is it a legal brief that was written in partnership with the Church's legal team at Kirton McConkie to give the church standing in opposing SSM laws? I think this is most likely and for me answers the question of why it hasn't been canonized.

The church can say anything it chooses, as is illustrated in the proclamation, but that doesn't mean its provenance is from God. I think that is the bigger issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/26/2016 at 10:01 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

They are darned as long as they act like hypocrites. Don't tell a person they are loved and welcome while simultaneously supporting a policy that excommunicates them for apostasy and prevents their children from receiving saving ordinances until they disavow the parent's SSM. If the church wants to be the church of the policy, they should own that and stop pretending like they are trying to be inclusive and loving. They're not. If they want to be inclusive and loving, there are some things the church needs to repent of, including the policy. But they can't have it both ways because it's dishonest and unethical.

How is quoting Bednar not "inclusive"? That statement literally makes no sense. Also, I've seen Bednar's entire answer on the question he was asked. Please explain how it was taken out of context. I suspect you will assign your definition of what you "think" he was trying to say or what you "think" his intention was. You're welcome to your opinion but I see no evidence of his comment being out of context within the whole of his answer. 

Even when I disagree with someone, HappyJack, I try to be fair.  Something you are clearly having a hard time with.  You seem determined to "get" Bednar on that statement you quoted, without bothering to ask a very simple question about what he meant.  Of course we all have opinions, but it might be nice to stop slinging invective and be more charitable.  You yourself seem something less than inclusive in your exclusion of the "dishonest" and "unethical" "hypocrites" you so easily identify, never once asking whether inclusion is meant to be absolute -- in the sense of accepting virtually any conduct, no matter what it might be.  That strikes at the very heart of what it means to have religious or ideological beliefs/identity of some sort.  It is as though even an unconditional Mormon Church surrender to your demands would not be likely to mollify you.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

What would any of the Brethren say, hypothetically, if you could ask him and he answered you? What do you think?  

That's the problem with the "wrong side of history" crowd. They can insist all they want that the PotF doesn't say this or leaves enough wiggle room for that, but what matters is what the overwhelmingly conservative Church leadership and active membership think it says (and I have to say that they have clear language on their side). I know that the "wrong side of history" people insist that there will be a tidal wave of change in a few generations leading to a massive liberalization of thought and belief regarding liberal social issues, but I don't think so.

The ones who overwhelmingly are called as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, area authorities, seventies, and apostles are very much of the same conservative mindset. The hope expressed by "wrong siders" is that demographic change will lead to progressive high ranking church leaders, eventually, but I think the Church's culture is uniquely insulated against that. For one thing, it has a persecution complex that will be reinforced, not weakened, by societal rejection.

I think it's very dangerous to claim that what matters most is how the majority interpret it, or what they "think it says". The majority has been wrong before. Church leaders have been wrong before. So it's not enough to say that XYZ is most important because that's the current consensus. I think arguing against that well established history, particularly as it relates to racist policies, puts your argument on the wrong side of church history. Are you able to see the historical similarities (civil rights) between the racist doctrines where no revelation is cited, and the current anti-lgbt policies where no revelation is cited?

Going along with the church crowd is the safe path for a member but I hope that no one would go along, just to go along. But I suspect that attitude of subservience is dominant. Still, just because an attitude is dominant doesn't mean it's a correct attitude.

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

?????

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose . . .  THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife . . .  WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed . . .  THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity . . . Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I know that advocates of gay marriage within the Church say that none of this applies to gay marriage, because when legally married, they are married, too. Putting aside the obvious (the clear language making it clear that only male/female marriage "counts" in the eyes of God, the Church, and the PotF), don't most gay marriage advocates complain that the PotF was issued to bolster the Church's legal claims in opposing gay marriage in Hawaii? Under this understanding, the PotF's very existence "addresses homosexuality."

Of course.  But that does not say much that these are exceptions to it all.  if this is revelation God did not address explicitly homosexuality.  He set up rules and we know general rules carry exceptions. 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

What would any of the Brethren say, hypothetically, if you could ask him and he answered you? What do you think?  

That's the problem with the "wrong side of history" crowd. They can insist all they want that the PotF doesn't say this or leaves enough wiggle room for that, but what matters is what the overwhelmingly conservative Church leadership and active membership think it says (and I have to say that they have clear language on their side). I know that the "wrong side of history" people insist that there will be a tidal wave of change in a few generations leading to a massive liberalization of thought and belief regarding liberal social issues, but I don't think so.

The ones who overwhelmingly are called as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, area authorities, seventies, and apostles are very much of the same conservative mindset. The hope expressed by "wrong siders" is that demographic change will lead to progressive high ranking church leaders, eventually, but I think the Church's culture is uniquely insulated against that. For one thing, it has a persecution complex that will be reinforced, not weakened, by societal rejection.

 

First, the Brethren consistently surprise me with responses I wouldn't expect so I'm not going to venture a guess.  But their response wouldn't change what the document actually says.

The rest of your commentary here jumps to this idea of conservatism among the leaders.  From where I sit, that is changing... I see it among some of the leaders that I interact with.  There is no way for either of us to really know or prove that opinion are or are not changing.  That's why we'll just have to wait.

For many, the persecution complex allows us to take a different viewpoint wherein we have great sympathy for the persecution suffered by our LGBT brothers and sisters and we hold to a strong desire to reject the kind of mortal prejudices that foster that persecution.

 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure I follow your argument here.

The proclamation definitely speaks against hmosxuality even if it isn't named explicitly. " sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

 

1

A gay couple is not employing any "powers of procreation" (a point that is frequently emphasized on these boards and within the church, as to why gay marriage can never be accepted by the church).

There are no references to homosexuality in the PotF, it's a doctrinal thesis on the sanctity and sacredness of heterosexual marriage.

Edited October 27, 2016 by rockpond
parenthetical comment

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's very dangerous to claim that what matters most is how the majority interpret it, or what they "think it says".

 

Excellent point.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even when I disagree with someone, HappyJack, I try to be fair.  Something you are clearly having a hard time with.  You seem determined to "get" Bednar on that statement you quoted, without bothering to ask a very simple question about what he meant.  Of course we all have opinions, but it might be nice to stop slinging invective and be more charitable.  You yourself seem something less than inclusive in your exclusion of the "dishonest" and "unethical" "hypocrites" you so easily identify, never once asking whether inclusion is meant to be absolute -- in the sense of accepting virtually any conduct, no matter what it might be.  That strikes at the very heart of what it means to have religious or ideological beliefs/identity of some sort.  It is as though even an unconditional Mormon Church surrender to your demands would not be likely to mollify you.

You need to work on your conversation skills because your tone makes it impossible to have a discussion.

Your entire comment is extremely mean spirited and personal. Instead of answering a couple of questions so I can better understand your point, you accuse me of being unfair. You accuse me of being "determined to get Bednar". You accuse me of never considering the question about what he meant. You accuse me of "slinging invective" and being uncharitable. You accuse me of making "demands". You are engaging in a standard political and debate maneuver when you can't debate the merits of the argument.

Don't bother responding to this. I'm done trying to talk with you on this thread. Maybe we can speak like grown ups another time.

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seemingly impacts your life because you have such a vested interest in the subject… unless such conversation is how you while away the hours. In either case, it sends a mixed message to call on everyone to wait and not engage in the very “loop” in which you continue to engage, regardless of your motive.

Say what you will about the gay community (as if there is one, homogeneous community that you accurately represent); I've seen a good deal of variation between individuals' tolerance levels.

Do you think anyone on this board's life is strongly impacted by what we discuss here?  I think most of us are here to exchange different ideas and trying to at least understand different points of view.  I actually do the same thing in regards to politics.  I enjoy going to very conservative websites and radio shows.  I just want to understand how people that think differently than me arrive at their point of view.  Yeah, kinda weird huh.

Of course the gay community doesn't think all alike.  About half of my friends are gay.  Just like the other half of my friends, we don't agree on everything.  But some subjects have a much more consensus than other subjects in both groups.  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A gay couple is not employing any "powers of procreation" (a point that is frequently emphasized on these boards and within the church, as to why gay marriage can never be accepted by the church).

There are no references to homosexuality in the PotF, it's a doctrinal thesis on the sanctity and sacredness of heterosexual marriage.

I agree with both points but we both know that "powers of procreation" is a euphemism for sex. Right? And if one is arguing for the sanctity of hetero marriage, it is purposely aimed at disparaging SSM.

What confuses me about your previous post is that you state the church isn't speaking against hmosxuality while simultaneously acknowledging that it's the church's vehicle for arguing legally against SSM. In a way you are making contradictory arguments.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with both points but we both know that "powers of procreation" is a euphemism for sex. Right? And if one is arguing for the sanctity of hetero marriage, it is purposely aimed at disparaging SSM.

What confuses me about your previous post is that you state the church isn't speaking against hmosxuality while simultaneously acknowledging that it's the church's vehicle for arguing legally against SSM. In a way you are making contradictory arguments.

If I may, my point was not that the PotF is not written in response to legalizing SSM debate.  It was.  My point was, if it is taken as revelation, which I don't do, then there is nothing in it that address explicitly homosexuality.  I agree it clearly defines marriage and all that, but that does not address the possibility of exceptions to the general rule, as can happen.  Like baptism has an exception, or celestial marriage (if one does not marry in this life). 

But you see, I realize the Potf was written in a political way and was not necessarily authored by God as revelation.

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's very dangerous to claim that what matters most is how the majority interpret it, or what they "think it says" . . . just because an attitude is dominant doesn't mean it's a correct attitude.

Whether or not Church policies are actually God's will or are "right" is a separate issue from the practical and functional realities. Hypothetically, the Church could be "wrong" in the eyes of God on this, but still continue policy status quo. Setting aside what is actually "right" (we all know where we are at with that on this issue), I was addressing the practical reality of affecting social change within the Church that will "de-criminalize" homosexuality and accept gay marriage. 

Are you able to see the historical similarities (civil rights) between the racist doctrines where no revelation is cited, and the current anti-lgbt policies where no revelation is cited?

I do see where others are coming from on this. The big difference between the priesthood ban and homosexuality/gay marriage is the magnitude of the law of chastity. I see giant changes in that as being much more fundamental and problematic than doctrine about (from the beginning) temporary priesthood restrictions --- especially where priesthood restriction has scriptural precedent (Levites, Ezra, Acts 10, etc.). In other words, I don't think the two cases are remotely equivalent.

Do you honestly, "honor bright," think that the reaction and transition among active Church members to sweeping law of chastity changes would be equivalent to the reaction and transition in 1978? 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

. . . there is nothing in it that address explicitly homosexuality.  I agree it clearly defines marriage and all that, but that does not address the possibility of exceptions to the general rule, as can happen. 

I'm failing to see where you see wiggle room for exceptions in such phrases as " We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Where do you see room for an exception with "only?"

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm failing to see where you see wiggle room for exceptions in such phrases as " We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Where do you see room for an exception with "only?"

I think it's because those who enter into a gay marriage, know they are not able to procreate "between" them.  So, of course those sacred powers are "only" able to "to be employed" between "man and woman".  

But that really does not address homosexuality or gay marriage, IMO.

 

.

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm failing to see where you see wiggle room for exceptions in such phrases as " We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Where do you see room for an exception with "only?"

ALarson explained my thoughts on that just fine. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with both points but we both know that "powers of procreation" is a euphemism for sex. Right? And if one is arguing for the sanctity of hetero marriage, it is purposely aimed at disparaging SSM.

What confuses me about your previous post is that you state the church isn't speaking against hmosxuality while simultaneously acknowledging that it's the church's vehicle for arguing legally against SSM. In a way you are making contradictory arguments.

 

I don't see an official proclamation from the apostles as a place for euphemism.

I don't think that the Proclamation speaks out against homosexuality.  Rather the Proclamation provides the basis for 1st amendment protections for the Church by making marriage a clear part of its published doctrine.  It allows the Church to say:  marriage isn't just a political construct that we have adopted into our culture, marriage is a part of our fundamental religious beliefs and is, therefore a matter of freedom of religion.

I think that they needed that as a foundation in order to go to battle against the rights of homosexual couples to also have legally recognized marriages.  It simultaneously protects the Church and justifies their involvement in that particular political process.

Our country's judicial system, in the end, has acknowledged and protected the Church's right to its beliefs about marriage while also clarifying that allowing for legal gay marriage does not harm the Church.