Cui Bono?

[Indy Coug]

Have you wondered if this is perhaps a spiritual tipping point?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/5/2#2

[All-American]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm not this cynical. In my mind there is little question that this is being done because the brethren believe that gay marriage is a moral evil which the Lord wants them to take a stand against. I think any possible cost benefit analysis gets swallowed up in this much larger point.

We can certainly disagree about whether they are right, but I at least believe their motives to be pure.

It's not so much that I'm cynical as it is that I'm trying to think of all the possible angles.

I don't really believe #1, and I see that nobody else really does either. So I'm happy to dispense with that notion. I thought more people would have spoken up for the third idea, which is that it was done out of the interest of those who would have otherwise engaged in same-gender relations.

Here, perhaps, is a better way of rephrasing the question. I am most decisively not gay. I am extremely attracted to beautiful women. Is the opposition to gay marriage for MY sake, and the sake of others like me, or is it for the sake of those who ARE gay? Or both?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Good question. If he was that confused in his sexual preference, I wouldn't want him to "act on it" with another guy, that's for sure. That's probably because it's tough to be gay, much more difficult than being straight, especially for Church members. I wouldn't want him to be cultivating that aspect of his sexuality while still a teenager and still confused about things. Maybe I just feel that way because I'm a bigot who hates the idea of having a gay son -- I'm not really sure.

If he eventually decided that he was completely gay, then I would want him to be happy -- either by being celibate and staying in the Church (if the Church was that important to him) or by leaving the Church and having a stable, long-term (married?) relationship that made him happy.

I guess for people who are truly bisexual, without a preference for either gender, my honest advice would be to try to be straight, if possible. Things just seem a lot less complicated for straight people.

And this is where I think the acceptance of gay marriage absolutely would affect your family b/c if you wanted your son to cultivate his heterosexual attraction and ignore his homosexual attractions, then you'd have a much tougher job on your hands if society was telling your son that gay sex is not only legitimate and acceptable, but it is enshrined in the holy union of marriage.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Have you wondered if this is perhaps a spiritual tipping point?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/5/2#2

I guess it is a spiritual tipping point. We'll see if the people who want to deny the equal legal right for some citizens to be married are more numerous than the people who want to protect the equal legal right for all citizens to be married.

Let's hope those with the moral high ground prevail.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I guess it is a spiritual tipping point. We'll see if the people who want to deny the equal legal right for some citizens to be married are more numerous than the number of people who want to protect the equal legal right for all citizens to be married.

Let's hope those with the moral high ground prevail.

If we can figure out which is the moral high ground, then we'll be set, eh?

[TripletDaddy]

I see it as all the reasons you listed, plus what UtahDan said. I am not sure there is any one reason why the Church is doing this, but an amalgam of many reasons.

The timing is clear......if there were no pending legislation, this would not be a pressing issue right now.

The other reason that is getting thrown around is that this move is a sort of castling maneuver on the part of the Church. They see the pieces on the board and are preemptively protecting their King for an attack that is 8 moves away.

Specifically, if same sex marriage becomes legal in California, it is only a matter of time before it becomes legal in more states. The Church's refusal to participate will eventually threaten its tax exempt status. Or so goes the argument.

I don't buy this argument at all. First, I doubt very highly that most here have even read Sec 501(c)(3). If they had, they would realize that, if anything, all this clandestine political lobbying is a greater threat to the Church's tax-exempt status than anything else. While the IRS has much more stringent limitations on its ability to audit churches, I am sure it would be interested in a tell-all expose of "behind the scenes" documents and communications in PEC, Sacrament, etc that deal with directing members how to vote on specific legislation. For being politically neutral, the Church seems to have a lot to say to its members when it comes election time.

Since the religious exemption for Civil Rights is not going anywhere, the only way the Church's "tax exempt" status may possibly be affected is at BYU of all places. The Bob Jones case really only extended to schools. So it would be possible that BYU could lose its tax exempt status....assuming that it currently IS tax exempt. I am not even sure that it is. The Church itself does not receive federal funds, so it would not be at any risk of losing such aid/funding.

I guess another possible loss of exemption would affect paid Church employees. For anyone who currently or has worked for the Church, does anyone know if the Church withholds and pays for its employees? Even some of them? I would imagine no, but again, not sure.

I think the mistaken notion is that the Church as a whole would have to start paying tax on all tithing and donations (as revenue), and this is simply not the case. Every major religion is opposed to homosexuality. Could you imagine the loss of tax exempt status for all world religions?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by All-American

Here, perhaps, is a better way of rephrasing the question. I am most decisively not gay. I am extremely attracted to beautiful women. Is the opposition to gay marriage for MY sake, and the sake of others like me, or is it for the sake of those who ARE gay? Or both?

A big part of the opposition stems from the fact that Mormons are, historically, really crappy dressers. The men especially. They wear awful shoes, ugly suits, and really boring clothes. The women's styles are a fashion abomination.

Keeping gays at bay simply makes us feel better about our fashion missteps. From that standpoint, we are really not a fabulous organization.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Adam

I largely buy this analysis, but would add that those who have strong complete same-sex attraction are 90+% of male homosexuals. With lesbians a passing same-sex attraction is probably lower, due to the lower sex-drive in general and the natural female urge to have babies.

So for the vast majority of gay latter-day saint men, the Church's position is sentencing them to a long and slow hell of a life. And this is the goal. Hey, they might be miserable and lonely, but they are aren't having gay sex and that is what matters!!!

Does this sound as screwed up to you as it does me?

The question is long-term spiritual well-being (as taught by the First Presidency) versus earthly emotional and physical well-being.

You come down on the side of earthly emotional and physical well-being in the form of loving relationships memorialized in the bonds of marriage.

I think I come from less progressive stock; suffer in this life for the sake of the next.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Here, perhaps, is a better way of rephrasing the question. I am most decisively not gay. I am extremely attracted to beautiful women. Is the opposition to gay marriage for MY sake, and the sake of others like me, or is it for the sake of those who ARE gay? Or both?

I would say the Church leaders believe that opposition to gay marriage benefits everybody in society by preserving the "sanctity of marriage" and the "traditional family", etc.

I'm not sure Church leaders even recognize the existence of gay people, just people who have chosen a gay, sinful lifestyle. I'm not sure they would even make the distinction that you are making between gay and straight. God wouldn't make somebody gay -- it's not part of the eternal plan.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Adam

So much for men are that they might have joy. You believe God wants gay people to be miserable. I think that is horrible and horribly wrong. I just cannot believe the Father who loves us wants His homosexual children to live a live of sad, lonely pain.

Because, motivated by love, I would want my homosexual son to find a helpmate and live a full life of joy, I think our Father, motivated by love, would want this for his sons too.

Maybe that is the truest and most core statement on the subject that I have come up with in these discussions to pin down how I feel and why I disagree with the Church's stand on the issue.

There is something to be said for the peace that comes when choosing obedience, even when that obedience causes immense suffering and pain.

Would you counsel a person to refrain from being baptized if that would result in him being shunned by his family, his friends, and his culture? (I tihnk my answer may vary depending on the situation. There is no dobut that such a choice would cause immense pain, even though such a choice would bring the peace that follows obediently following the Savior. I'm sincerely interested to hear your answer here.)

What of the load that Christ promises to carry for those with extra heavy crosses? And carrying the load does not mean eliminating the loneliness or the anguish, I'm sure. But I think it means, at least it has in my experience with my crosses, that Christ assures us that there is purpose in carrying the load; that is, he gives hope.