Jump to content

Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida


Recommended Posts

On 11/14/2022 at 10:45 AM, smac97 said:

For myself, I would love to see a revelation from God establishing the moral legitimacy of same-sex behavior.  There are a few reasons for this:

First, I think it is important that we look for and discern the will of God and accept it when it is given to us.  

Second, if past and current prophets and apostles have been substantively wrong on this issue, I want such errors to be corrected. 

Third, I want my gay brothers and sisters to be happy, and if such happiness can be found in same-sex behavior being compatible with God's will, then I'm all for it.

Fourth, it would be a big relief for the Latter-day Saints, as you and yours would (hopefully) stop characterizing us has hateful bigots.

As it is, however, I don't anticipate such a revelation.  I'll surely eat crow if and when we see one presented to us, but meanwhile I think it is incumbent upon us to proclaim the Gospel as it has been formulated by and through prophets and apostles, both past and present. This is as opposed to the Gospel as conforming to popular social trends.

I would love for God to establish a moral legitimacy for all my "sins" so I can stop worrying about them.  That would be nice. 

Perhaps God does not need to do this as there is no moral legitimacy to same sex behavior. Not on this world nor the hundreds of billions of other worlds he has created. 

But what we call moral behavior actually was all a mistake. Perhaps if God would just get rid of the whole sin thing, everyone can be happy.  Porn stars, swingers, ect all have a right to be happy.   Why should gay people get to happiness while those who want open marriages should not be happy?  Lets just be inclusive to everyone and their desires and lifestyles.  Perhaps a revelation that the whole law of chastity as a mistake and it should be entirely discarded.  That would be a big relief for EVERYONE.   Why should LGBT be the only ones that get relief?  If your orientation is to be promiscuous then that is what you are.  If a man was not born to be monogamist. It is wrong to expect him to be with one person.   We need more love and acceptance for the Nick Cannons of the world.  They are entitled to priesthood and temple blessing also. 

You are entitled to your views but I think such a change would be a complete disaster for the church.  It would open a can of worms that would be the beginning of the end of any moral code in the church.   Because where would it end? We know what would happen to the church.  It would split the church in two just as this issue has done in other churches.   There would be a side that accepts gay relationships and a side that does not.  It would be a split far more profound and deep than the split that occurred after Joseph died.  How would a division cut up the properties of the church?  They divide up the temples?  Which side would run BYU.  It would be a hot mess.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The same bill of rights that allowed slavery for decades!? Yeah who could want anymore rights than that. 

there was a strong ablutionist voice.   Jefferson tried to convince everyone that slavery should be abolished at the outset. He was unsuccessful however.  I suppose it was already too deeply embedded in society.  It was also true that Although England at the time had already abolished slavery the various colonies retained, supported and would have not joined in the revolution had it been done away with as a pre-condition of the revolution.   So slavery remained.  This was a political social matter du jour and had nothing to do with the Bill or Rights.

 

How anyone could compare slavery to same sex marriage is beyond me.  The first is an evil. The second is a mere transitory interest.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intended to speak in broad terms about what we will and won't allow in our new country.   We are not supposed to be talking about politics on this forum but I will say that it is the States, not the federal government that should concern themselves with matters pertaining to small special interest groups.  I feel the same way about the other current issue that begins with "a".   It's a state matter not a federal one.  

 

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.  Same sex marriages are considered by many to be deviant issues.  They already have Civil Union alternatives.  But there are too many hard core Christians in our country, those who believe the purpose of a marriage is to make babies for a union wherein it is impossible for a baby to result... well all I can say is good luck.  I wish you well.

 

My opinion is not really about whether it's right or wrong. My opinion is that it is not a matter for the federal government to be involved with.  The job of the federal government in our republic is to take care of national defense, international relations and the issuing of currency.  That's about it.  All other considerations revert to states.  That is the way our nation is set up.   Besides the Constitution cannot be changed by the mere passage of laws.  No.   It can only be modified through a Constitutional Convention.  There have only been a few of these in our history.  Same sex marriage is not a matter that could justify such a dramatic move.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:
Quote

 

For myself, I would love to see a revelation from God establishing the moral legitimacy of same-sex behavior.  There are a few reasons for this:

First, I think it is important that we look for and discern the will of God and accept it when it is given to us.  

Second, if past and current prophets and apostles have been substantively wrong on this issue, I want such errors to be corrected. 

Third, I want my gay brothers and sisters to be happy, and if such happiness can be found in same-sex behavior being compatible with God's will, then I'm all for it.

Fourth, it would be a big relief for the Latter-day Saints, as you and yours would (hopefully) stop characterizing us has hateful bigots.

As it is, however, I don't anticipate such a revelation.  I'll surely eat crow if and when we see one presented to us, but meanwhile I think it is incumbent upon us to proclaim the Gospel as it has been formulated by and through prophets and apostles, both past and present. This is as opposed to the Gospel as conforming to popular social trends.

 

I would love for God to establish a moral legitimacy for all my "sins" so I can stop worrying about them.  That would be nice. 

I think you have misunderstood me.  Let me lay out my reasoning:

1. I believe that the Church's teachings regarding the Law of Chastity and marriage are substantively correct, including the constraints on same-sex behavior.

2. Notwithstanding #1 above, I believe we need to be open to new light and knowledge.  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)  I have seen no indication at all that the Church's position on marriage and the Law of Chastity will be changed to accommodate same-sex marriage, and I have seen ample evidence for the contrary position (that such teachings will not change).  I have also examined the issue of same-sex attraction and behavior and have come to my own reasoned conclusions leading me to believe these teachings will not change.  

3. Many critics, and even some members, believe that the Church's position is substantively wrong, and they often draw comparisons between the the Church's teachings on same-sex behavior with its pre-1978 position on the Priesthood Ban.  That is, they feel that the Church was, for a long time, "wrong" to prohibit black men from receiving the Priesthood, and has likewise been "wrong" for a long time as to the moral legitimacy of same-sex behavior.

4. Consequent to the preceding assessment, both the Church and its members catch a lot of flack for believing that same-sex behavior is sinful.  We are regularly branded has hayseeds and bigots, with no room possible for principled disagreement.  The options seem to be A) endorse / ratify / celebrate same-sex marriage/behavior, or B) be a bigot.  I find such implicit notions to be coercive and unfair.  Nevertheless, this is the world we live in.

5. Given the possibility explained in #2 above (in a "for the sake of argument" kind of way), I remain open to the theoretical possibility that either A) the proposition in #3 above is apt (that the Church has been "wrong" about same-sex attraction/behavior), or B) the Church has been "right" on these issues, but the Lord may yet reveal a paradigm shift in our thinking regarding SSA/SSM.  If either one of these is the case, I want to know about it.  I want to discern the Lord's will and follow it.  And if we were to be given such a revelatory paradigm shift, an added bonus would be that our critics might stop labeling us as hateful bigots.

6. As it happens, I don't think the foregoing will ever happen, so this is all pretty much an exercise in navel-gazing and speculation.

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

But what we call moral behavior actually was all a mistake. Perhaps if God would just get rid of the whole sin thing, everyone can be happy.  Porn stars, swingers, ect all have a right to be happy.   Why should gay people get to happiness while those who want open marriages should not be happy?  Lets just be inclusive to everyone and their desires and lifestyles.  Perhaps a revelation that the whole law of chastity as a mistake and it should be entirely discarded.  That would be a big relief for EVERYONE.   Why should LGBT be the only ones that get relief?  If your orientation is to be promiscuous then that is what you are.  If a man was not born to be monogamist. It is wrong to expect him to be with one person.   We need more love and acceptance for the Nick Cannons of the world.  They are entitled to priesthood and temple blessing also. 

I was not suggesting that a "right to be happy" can or ought to trump the Lord's guidance on morality.

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

You are entitled to your views but I think such a change would be a complete disaster for the church.  It would open a can of worms that would be the beginning of the end of any moral code in the church.   Because where would it end? We know what would happen to the church.  It would split the church in two just as this issue has done in other churches.   There would be a side that accepts gay relationships and a side that does not.  It would be a split far more profound and deep than the split that occurred after Joseph died.  How would a division cut up the properties of the church?  They divide up the temples?  Which side would run BYU.  It would be a hot mess.

I agree.  I don't see it happening.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

How anyone could compare slavery to same sex marriage is beyond me. 
 

I for one am glad that people decided they weren’t happy with the rights established in the original constitution and decided to substantially expand them. Stopping at the bill of rights seems absurd. 

7 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

The first is an evil. The second is a mere transitory interest. 

Elder Holland said he couldn’t begin to understand or talk about heaven if it didn’t include his spouse. It seems extremely short sighted, callous and hateful to describe such a sacred relationship as “a mere transitory interest”. But it doesn’t appear we have much common ground. You think the bill of rights is enough for everyone and that the most significant relationships in peoples lives can be described as “mere transitory interest”. For me I should probably stay away from organizations that produce such anti-family rhetoric from its members. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For me I should probably stay away from organizations that produce such anti-family rhetoric from its members. 

Just FYI, it may not make a difference but Jakob is not a member.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74915-the-role-of-justification-in-forming-beliefs/?do=findComment&comment=1210122998

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I for one am glad that people decided they weren’t happy with the rights established in the original constitution and decided to substantially expand them. Stopping at the bill of rights seems absurd. 

 

It seems odd to find an LDS member who promotes liberal ideas.  But here you are saying that I am hateful because I am of the opinion that two men getting married is contrary to the purpose of marriage.   How cavalierly you pass judgment on others who you never met.  But this is also something that social liberals do with seeming carefree abandon. 

 

Our foundational Bill of Rights is not a document which should tampered with especially in ways that reflect transitory foolishness which is what same sex marriage is.   The foundations of marriage are established by hundreds of centuries of human experience on Earth.  It is patently irresponsible to try to change them just because a very small minority of emotional types says we should. 

 

It is legal for two of the same sex to live together legally.  Why isn't that sufficient?   Do you know any Mormons who advocate same sex marriage?  Any who do are outside the teachings of the church.  Shall the entire nation of hundreds of millions of citizens be forced to acknowledge something that they find abhorrent just because a very small minority is upset?   And are we all hateful just because you say so?     When you age a bit and mature you will find that tradition is what holds society together.  Foolish ideas come and they go.  Tradition endures.  This is what the LDS church is all about.

 

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

How anyone could compare slavery to same sex marriage is beyond me.

Maybe because Mormons have statements like this from Pres. Kimball declaring that defending one's chastity is more important than defending one's life.

Quote

"It is better to die in defending one's [virginity] than to live having lost it without a struggle" 

 

Link to comment

What I wonder is will supporting this legislation protect the Church from law suits? What if a professor of religion at BYU "transitions" to a different gender/sex and is subsequently fired. Won't this person be able to sue BYU or the Church for discriminitory practice? It seems to me the LBGT aim is to overthrow the longstanding moral code regarding sex, seeing it as an offence to their freedom. Nothing less than abandonment of that moral code will satisfy.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Maybe because Mormons have statements like this from Pres. Kimball declaring that defending one's chastity is more important than defending one's life.

 

As you wish amigo.  I'm not a Mormon.  What they do or don't do does not affect me.  I am not a joiner nor am I a follower.   I do not sign on to any religious sect's social requirements.  But... I am surprised to hear even their Prophet has gone left.   Imagine the state of Utah going woke.  Wow....  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Aren't you doing the same thing to gay people who marry?

No my non-thinking friend.  My opinions are not about them as persons.  I don't even know them.  They might be honest, hard working folks worthy of friendship.   My opinion about same sex marriage is solely about two people of the same sex getting legally married.  Has nothing to do with who they are.   

 

Try being objective in a discussion for a change.   Set aside emotionalisn, hurt feelings. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

What I wonder is will supporting this legislation protect the Church from law suits?

I suspect it and other legislation will.

18 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

What if a professor of religion at BYU "transitions" to a different gender/sex and is subsequently fired. Won't this person be able to sue BYU or the Church for discriminitory practice?

I don't think so.  See, e.g., this 2017 guidance from the DOJ: Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty

Quote

19. Religious employers are entitled to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employers' religious precepts.

Constitutional and statutory protections apply to certain religious hiring decisions. Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and societies—that is, entities that are organized for religious purposes and engage in activity consistent with, and in furtherance of, such purposes—have an express statutory exemption from Title VII's prohibition on religious discrimination in employment. Under that exemption, religious organizations may choose to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the organizations' religious precepts. For example, a Lutheran secondary school may choose to employ only practicing Lutherans, only practicing Christians, or only those willing to adhere to a code of conduct consistent with the precepts of the Lutheran community sponsoring the school. Indeed, even in the absence of the Title VII exemption, religious employers might be able to claim a similar right under RFRA or the Religion Clauses of the Constitution.
...

ii. Protections for Religious Employers

Congress has acknowledged, however, that religion sometimes is an appropriate factor in employment decisions, and it has limited Title VII's scope accordingly. Thus, for example, where religion “is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of [a] particular business or enterprise,” employers may hire and employ individuals based on their religion. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(e)(1). Likewise, where educational institutions are “owned, supported, controlled or managed, [in whole or in substantial part] by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society” or direct their curriculum “toward the propagation of a particular religion,” such institutions may hire and employ individuals of a particular religion. Id. And “a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society” may employ “individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.” Id. § 2000e-1(a); Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 335-36 (1987).

Because Title VII defines “religion” broadly to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief,” 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j), these exemptions include decisions “to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employer's religious precepts.” Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944, 951 (3d Cir. 1991); see also Killinger v. Samford Univ., 113 F.3d 196, 198-200 (11th Cir. 1997). For example, in Little, the Third Circuit held that the exemption applied to a Catholic school's decision to fire a divorced Protestant teacher who, though having agreed to abide by a code of conduct shaped by the doctrines of the Catholic Church, married a baptized Catholic without first pursuing the official annulment process of the Church. 929 F.2d at 946, 951.

Section 702 broadly exempts from its reach religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and societies. The statute's terms do not limit this exemption to non-profit organizations, to organizations that carry on only religious activities, or to organizations established by a church or formally affiliated therewith. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 702(a), codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); see also Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2773-74; Corp. of Presiding Bishop, 483 U.S. at 335-36. The exemption applies whenever the organization is “religious,” which means that it is organized for religious purposes and engages in activity consistent with, and in furtherance of, such purposes. Br. of Amicus Curiae the U.S. Supp. Appellee, Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., No. 08-35532 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, the exemption applies not just to religious denominations and houses of worship, but to religious colleges, charitable organizations like the Salvation Army and World Vision International, and many more. In that way, it is consistent with other broad protections for religious entities in federal law, including, for example, the exemption of religious entities from many of the requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. See 28 CFR app. C; 56 Fed. Reg. 35544, 35554 (July 26, 1991) (explaining that “[t]he ADA's exemption of religious organizations and religious entities controlled by religious organizations is very broad, encompassing a wide variety of situations”).

In addition to these explicit exemptions, religious organizations may be entitled to additional exemptions from discrimination laws. See, e.g., Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 180, 188-90. For example, a religious organization might conclude that it cannot employ an individual who fails faithfully to adhere to the organization's religious tenets, either because doing so might itself inhibit the organization's exercise of religion or because it might dilute an expressive message. Cf. Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 649-55 (2000). Both constitutional and statutory issues arise when governments seek to regulate such decisions.

As a constitutional matter, religious organizations' decisions are protected from governmental interference to the extent they relate to ecclesiastical or internal governance matters. Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 180, 188-90. It is beyond dispute that “it would violate the First Amendment for courts to apply [employment discrimination] laws to compel the ordination of women by the Catholic Church or by an Orthodox Jewish seminary.” Id. at 188. The same is true for other employees who “minister to the faithful,” including those who are not themselves the head of the religious congregation and who are not engaged solely in religious functions. Id. at 188, 190, 194-95; see also Br. of Amicus Curiae the U.S. Supp. Appellee, Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., No. 08-35532 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the First Amendment protects “the right to employ staff who share the religious organization's religious beliefs”).

Even if a particular associational decision could be construed to fall outside this protection, the government would likely still have to show that any interference with the religious organization's associational rights is justified under strict scrutiny. See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984) (infringements on expressive association are subject to strict scrutiny); Smith, 494 U.S. at 882 (“[I]t is easy to envision a case in which a challenge on freedom of association grounds would likewise be reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns.”). The government may be able to meet that standard with respect to race discrimination, see Bob Jones Univ., 461 U.S. at 604, but may not be able to with respect to other forms of discrimination. For example, at least one court has held that forced inclusion of women into a mosque's religious men's meeting would violate the freedom of expressive association. Donaldson v. Farrakhan, 762 N.E.2d 835, 840-41 (Mass. 2002). The Supreme Court has also held that the government's interest in addressing sexual-orientation discrimination is not sufficiently compelling to justify an infringement on the expressive association rights of a private organization. Boy Scouts, 530 U.S. at 659.

As a statutory matter, RFRA too might require an exemption or accommodation for religious organizations from antidiscrimination laws. For example, “prohibiting religious organizations from hiring only coreligionists can `impose a significant burden on their exercise of religion, even as applied to employees in programs that must, by law, refrain from specifically religious activities.'” Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Award of a Grant Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 31 Op. O.L.C. 162, 172 (2007) (quoting Direct Aid to Faith-Based Organizations Under the Charitable Choice Provisions of the Community Solutions Act of 2001, 25 Op. O.L.C. 129, 132 (2001)); see also Corp. of Presiding Bishop, 483 U.S. at 336 (noting that it would be “a significant burden on a religious organization to require it, on pain of substantial liability, to predict which of its activities a secular court w[ould] consider religious” in applying a nondiscrimination provision that applied only to secular, but not religious, activities). If an organization establishes the existence of such a burden, the government must establish that imposing such burden on the organization is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. That is a demanding standard and thus, even where Congress has not expressly exempted religious organizations from its antidiscrimination laws—as it has in other contexts, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 3607 (Fair Housing Act), 12187 (Americans with Disabilities Act)—RFRA might require such an exemption.

The legislation under consideration is not the only federal statute in play.

18 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

It seems to me the LBGT aim is to overthrow the longstanding moral code regarding sex, seeing it as an offence to their freedom. Nothing less than abandonment of that moral code will satisfy.

Well, there are some folks in that category who are not taking a "live and let live" approach, but there are also many who are.  And the law favors the latter set.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

It seems odd to find an LDS member who promotes liberal ideas.  

We have devout believers, doubters, and critics of the Restored Church, nonmember Christians that may be Catholic, Protestant, or something else, agnostics and atheists all posting on this board.  You should not assume another poster is a believing Latter-day Saint Christian unless they tell you they are (and even then on rare occasions we have trolls pretending to be believers to mock us, so seeing how others on the board respond to another poster is also a good way to figure out their faith or lack of faith position). 
 

Me, I am a devout believer, but I hold some non traditional positions. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

Try being objective in a discussion for a change.   Set aside emotionalisn, hurt feelings. 

“Be objective” translates most of the time to “think as I do” in my experience.

It is impossible for a human to be objective.  Our brains are not wired to turn off emotion or value judgment for one thing. For another, there is no “real” standard we have access to with which we can measure objectivity since the only conduit to what is outside us is what is inside us.  Think about it. 
 

Anyone claiming they are objective in some fashion is lying to themselves. This is now recognized pretty much in every field, even those whose goal is objectivity. 
 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-intelligence/201206/the-myth-objectivity?amp

https://www.bluesci.co.uk/posts/the-myth-of-objectivity

https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/mythobj.html

Quote

my non-thinking friend. 

Since his posting here is in itself conclusive evidence he is indeed thinking (if we assume that the message board and those posting on it exist in reality and are not a creation like a Matrix or a delusion of an addled mind), your use of that label indicates to me you are being not only judgmental/nonobjective, but emotional…but since all humans who do not have brain damage are emotional, that was not much of a leap for me to make.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect it and other legislation will.

I don't think so.  See, e.g., this 2017 guidance from the DOJ: Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty

The legislation under consideration is not the only federal statute in play.

Well, there are some folks in that category who are not taking a "live and let live" approach, but there are also many who are.  And the law favors the latter set.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am against granting special rights to any group that the rest of us don't also enjoy. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I am against granting special rights to any group that the rest of us don't also enjoy. 

My take on "heal relationships and foster understanding" in connection with the Church's support of such legislation refers to the Church expressing our equal regard for all God's children (e.g., equal protection under the law as it stands today after it has been settled through due process), and also our higher regard for what we believe to be God and His covenants, including marriage as we practice it. We can support those things that protect people who are LGBTQ -- the same protections all God's children should have (commerce, housing, employment, public safety, etc. as demonstrated in part in the Utah Compromise) -- and that also protect our religion as much as any other fundamental (or "special" right (such as commerce, housing, employment, public safety, etc.). Special protection is not special right.

Link to comment
On 11/18/2022 at 2:07 AM, Jakob42 said:

Shall the entire nation of hundreds of millions of citizens be forced to acknowledge something that they find abhorrent just because a very small minority is upset?   And are we all hateful just because you say so?    

 

 

This could very well apply to polygamy. 

Link to comment
On 11/18/2022 at 4:48 PM, Calm said:

We have devout believers, doubters, and critics of the Restored Church, nonmember Christians that may be Catholic, Protestant, or something else, agnostics and atheists all posting on this board.  You should not assume another poster is a believing Latter-day Saint Christian unless they tell you they are (and even then on rare occasions we have trolls pretending to be believers to mock us, so seeing how others on the board respond to another poster is also a good way to figure out their faith or lack of faith position). 
 

Me, I am a devout believer, but I hold some non traditional positions. 

I am more of a cultural believer.  I find comfort in the origins and evolution of Christianity in all it's flavors but approach scriptures with a cautious attitude.  I choose what to believe.

Link to comment
On 11/18/2022 at 3:07 AM, Jakob42 said:

It is legal for two of the same sex to live together legally.  Why isn't that sufficient?   Do you know any Mormons who advocate same sex marriage?  Any who do are outside the teachings of the church.  Shall the entire nation of hundreds of millions of citizens be forced to acknowledge something that they find abhorrent just because a very small minority is upset?   And are we all hateful just because you say so?     When you age a bit and mature you will find that tradition is what holds society together.  Foolish ideas come and they go.  Tradition endures.  This is what the LDS church is all about.

 

A strong majority of the country (71%) supports same sex marriage rights. The "very small minority" that is upset appears to be the few who oppose same sex marriage rights. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Eschaton said:

A strong majority of the country (71%) supports same sex marriage rights. The "very small minority" that is upset appears to be the few who oppose same sex marriage rights. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx

I disagree.  Polls are crafted to give the desired results of the group who is paying for them.  I have never met anyone who thought gar marriage was a popular idea, except by gays who represent less than 10% of the population.   We all know, though, that the current trends for wokeness has great influence in many who would otherwise not hesitate to speak truthfully.

 

My dislike of the idea of gay marriage is nothing to do with religious opinion.  When I visualize two men being married I can't help but to think of a penis in a rectum.  How very disgusting that is.  No normal human being would warm up to that perverted idea.  And marriage legitimizes it.   Am I a homo phone?  No.  "Phobia" is Greek for fear.  I am NOT afraid of gays.   What I am is sickened by them.  

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

I disagree.  Polls are crafted to give the desired results of the group who is paying for them. 

Facts are facts. You can disagree with them but it doesn't change them.

45 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

I have never met anyone who thought gar marriage was a popular idea, except by gays who represent less than 10% of the population.   We all know, though, that the current trends for wokeness has great influence in many who would otherwise not hesitate to speak truthfully.

There's a good reason why "the circle of people I know" is not a valid statistical measure. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/course/public-opinion-polling-basics/#how-does-polling-work

 

45 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

 

My dislike of the idea of gay marriage is nothing to do with religious opinion.  When I visualize two men being married I can't help but to think of a penis in a rectum.  How very disgusting that is.  No normal human being would warm up to that perverted idea.  And marriage legitimizes it.   Am I a homo phone?  No.  "Phobia" is Greek for fear.  I am NOT afraid of gays.   What I am is sickened by them.  

Lots of straight married couples do that too. But why does your sexual interest in the visualization of the couple's private bedroom time make a difference? By this measure (you personally not finding the idea appealing) wouldn't that be an argument against marriage for old people, or ugly people, or overweight people? 

Most straight men seem to think women in same sex relationships isn't gross (rather the contrary) - maybe that's why Biblical writers (all men) neglected to condemn sexual relationships between women. 

 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
On 11/18/2022 at 4:07 AM, Jakob42 said:

 Do you know any Mormons who advocate same sex marriage? 

The Church itself is openly advocating for the Respect for Marriage Law that would require the US federal government to recognize the validity of same sex and interracial marriages in the United States. 
Which means members can support this law and be in good standing as well.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jakob42 said:

That's the same as saying that a large majority of the population thinks it's OK for a penis to be in a rectum.   If you believe that then you are sick.

This seems to be really compelling imagery for you. You go there again and again, as if you are compulsively drawn to it. Why do you suppose that is?

I'm asking because it isn't so common for folks to filter their understanding of marriage thru images of graphic sexual behavior. For example, when I consider the merits of my parents' marriage, there's no parent porn playing in my head. Likewise, for my bishops' or ancestors' marriages.

Edited by Chum
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...