Let's stop beating around the bush
 

and talk about the more core issue explaining why the church opposes gay marriage: it is the same reason that the church opposes civil unions for gays.

Now the trick is to explain why the church opposes civil unions for gays. And also why in its recent press release, it pretended to NOT oppose them.

Now we all know that the apologists are having a dickens of a time explaining the church's opposition to gay marriage. How the hell are they supposed to explain opposition to civil unions? But I know we have a few enterprising apologists here, so maybe one of you is up to the challenge of explaining why all must rise up against civil unions.

Is this so hard to understand? The church is against homosexual sex. The church has in the past and will in the future jump in the political arena on morality issues.

You may not like the reason but that is the reason.

Someone I know who pays close attention to these things (and talks to lower level functionaries in the church) thinks the recent press release isn't pretending but reflects aome ambiguity in the positions of the brethren and a position which may be ascendant. I do not know how well founded that idea is.

I think this is pretty accurate. The church is anti-homosexuals.

They ask us to love homosexuals, but to hate everything about them that has to do with their desire for intimacy, love, and physical affection (even hugging and kissing are abhorred and punishable). In other words, the very thing that some would argues makes us human, they ask us to hate in homosexuals.

Of course, they don't say this outright. They just wink and try to get everyone on the same page.

God is still trying to make up his mind on this one? Even though God has already made up his mind on Prop 8?

<sigh>

Actually, of course, this fits in with the model presented by the McKay biography: very human consensus building and disagreements and politics.

No, God is pretty sure where he stands, I feel confident in saying, the rest of us are still figuring it out (except for SU; he always knows).

Anti-homosexual or anti-homosexual sex?

It sounds like you're saying that the act of physical sex is what defines homosexuals. I'm guessing there is more to it than that.

I think I recall reading somewhere that it is the "slippery slope" argument. Once you give them civil unions, marriage will be next.

It's not just about sex. If two guys are walking around BYU holding hands and being affectionate towards one another, they'll quickly find themselves in front of the honor code office. It's obviously not just sex act that is the problem.

Adam's solution is more elegant.

We should abandon marriage in favor of church sealings. Churches should abandon marriage altogether.

It allowed the state on one hand to legitimize Church authority but it also allowed government to dictate it.