The church has spoken...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Why is no one willing to judge the measures taken here on the basis of what the church says instead of what they think it says or think it means?

Are you really asking this question?

[Anthesian]

Originally Posted by exUte

So the prophet and first presidency were wrong? The Proclamation on the Family is not inspired? Ok.

I know many people who ended up severing ties with their family when they got baptized (because the family left them). You probably ran into some of those situations in the mission field. Did you encourage them to join because of their testimony even though it may cost them their familial relationship?

This is such bullshit. The so-called "Proclamation on the Family" is a political document and speech given after the same-sex marriage disputes in Hawaii. The same disputes that the LDS members and the church put their time, effort and money into. I attended an Institute of Religion fireside a few weeks back and the idiot at the podium stated that voting in favor of marriage initiatives is a form of sustaining the "prophet". Awww...how cute! Coercion at its best. Like I said...it's bullshit.

To compare a situation such as this to that of a converts experience of losing their family is fallacious. Come up with something better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

Unliek you, I found cougarobgon's post to be both thoughtful and persuasive. That you are unimpressed is unimpressive, quite frankly.

Fair enough, let's take a look at that post.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...9&postcount=33

From the post:

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Now, one can argue for or against the merits of prop 8 and its implications on society, but, I believe voting for prop 8 simply came down to how uncomfortable people become when they think about two men having sex. Some of you may get turned on just thinking about it, but I don't, it disgusts me and don't want anything to with it. And I certainly don't want to legitimize what I consider to be improper moral behavior by diluting the significance of how a man and woman express their commitment to one another by getting married.

So this is the core of this opposition? That he finds gay sex disgusting? And you find this logic impressive?

And I find it offensive and ignorant that he would assume that opponents of prop 8 are secretly "turned just thinking about" gay sex between men. Come on.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

I am not a practitioner of medicine and have no "book learning" with respect to whether one is born gay or makes a choice to become gay.

So he appears to have little sympathy for the idea that people don't choose to be gay. He hasn't even caught up to the current church position on that one.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

I believe in God and believe it was never his intent that a man lay with another man. He created Adam and Eve and there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Oh well, that settles it.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

If I don't stand up to those whose sole purpose is to legitimize the "gay agenda" or for that matter, to stand up against other issues that I believe to be immoral, then I am not excercising my rights as an American citizen. But it does not make me a bigot, undeducated or sheep. Those supporting prop 8 spoke, those against prop 8 spoke, the people voted, game over, at least for now.

Here we go with the evil "gay agenda" angle again. Fear-mongering 101.

Sorry creekster, but I just can't find much here that I consider "impressive".


From your last point:

Originally Posted by creekster

Moreover, you knwo very well that he was referring to the church's policy that same sex marraige is improper not to its explantion for their existence or the best way to assuimilate them into a congregation. Neither of these is affected by the policy on marriage.

You are nitpicking. My point is that the church's policy/doctrine has evolved and will most likely continue to evolve. They can't even make up their mind on civil unions. Two years ago they were firmly against them, now they send contradicting messages.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Here we go with the evil "gay agenda" angle again. Fear-mongering 101.

You really are in denial about the militant gay movement, aren't you.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

Do you see this in your ward? I know of several people in my ward that opposed the proposition and they are nto being treated as pariahs. Where do you get this crap? Moreover, the church never said it was the gettysburg. This was an anecdote reported bu never confirmed, AFAIK. Why is no one willing to judge the measures taken here on the basis of what the church says instead of what they think it says or think it means?

pariah may be strong, but come on, creek-a-rino....the Church did NOT make it clear from the outset that voting No was ok or acceptable. And while every ward likely had dissenters, I can honestly say that I heard zero OPEN discussion of their opinions. It was all in private conversation. The thought was that if you said you were voting No, you could either get in trouble (which was an unfounded fear) or be treated like a pariah. Based on the reactions of folks on CB (not so much this board, with the outrageous exceptions of Exie and NorCal Cat), can you blame the No voters for simply keeping their opinions to themselves in public?

Why didnt they publish this most recent statement BEFORE the election....the one that basically says, "hey, we know many members will vote no and that all our members shape their political opinions based on personal experiences.....the main thing is that we all respect each other."

Might have made this process much more friendly.

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

OK, congratulations. You stopped the queers from getting married. Swell for you.

I found this comment interesting. From what I'm hearing - and I could be wrong - it sounds as if blacks and hispanics had as much or more to do with "stopping the queers from getting married" as the Mormons did. Perhaps courgarobgon is black or hispanic - I don't know.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by smokymountainrain

I found this comment interesting. From what I'm hearing - and I could be wrong - it sounds as if blacks and hispanics had as much or more to do with "stopping the queers from getting married" as the Mormons did. Perhaps courgarobgon is black or hispanic - I don't know.

This is absolutely correct. Blacks and hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, and quite possibly in greater numbers than CA mormons.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is absolutely correct. Blacks and hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, and quite possibly in greater numbers than CA mormons.

Lebowski can't criticize them because he doesn't want to be viewed as racist. So instead he cannibalizes his own.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Lebowski can't criticize them because he doesn't want to be viewed as racist. So instead he cannibalizes his own.

I am fairly confident that within the black and hispanic ranks that there were those who voted out of religious conviction and those who voted out of homophobia, just like in our ranks. But admittedly, I have no proof of that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

You really are in denial about the militant gay movement, aren't you.

No, I am in denial that every thing that happens relative to gays is part of a vast, evil conspiracy. I think the term "gay agenda" is a cheap prop used by the wacko religious right to demonize gays and to promote fear-mongering.