Let's stop beating around the bush

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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.

Of course, if they are walking around with a beard they will also go the the HC office, so I am not sure that is too useful as an indicator of eccleisiastical import.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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

well once you don't beat them to death and tie them to a fence post in Wyoming, they will be asking to not be killed. Once not killed, they will ask not to be beaten. Once not beaten they will ask not to be harassed. Once not harassed, they will ask to be ignored and allowed to live. Once ignored and allowed to live, they will be asked to be treated as normal human beings. Once treated as normal human beings, they will ask to be able to associate in public. Once able to associate in public they will ask to be able to hold hands and kiss in public. Once able to hold hands and kiss in public, they will ask not to be arrested for having sex in their own home. Once not arrested for having sex in their own home, they will ask that people realize they can be committed couples. Once realized that they can be committed couples, they will ask for legal rights such as hospital visitation. Once able to have legal rights such as hospital visitation, they will ask for rights to be bundled in the form of civil unions. Once rights are bundled in the form of civil unions, they will ask that they be given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions. Once given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions, they will be married.

And the minions of hell will be loosed upon the earth, daughters ravaged, sons raped, and horses loosed to run wild and trample the crops of man, death and starvation the result of the sins of the world.

Got it. It really is a slippery slope.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

This is very likely. I argued this back in 2000, when same sex marriage first seemed to be ascending.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Yeah, my dad trotted out the argument that if gays are allowed to be married, gays will have to be allowed into the temple endowment ceremony because of the current wording of the temple ceremony concerning marriage.

There are a lot of church members who believe crap like this.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by creekster

Of course, if they are walking around with a beard they will also go the the HC office, so I am not sure that is too useful as an indicator of eccleisiastical import.

It illustrates that the Church's problem with homosexuality goes well beyond the sex act. How often to we hear the refrain that there is no sin in same-sex attraction, just in the ultimate sexual consummation of that attraction? Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands, if that is as far as they ever take it?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It illustrates that the Church's problem with homosexuality goes well beyond the sex act. How often to we hear the refrain that there is no sin in same-sex attraction, just in the ultimate sexual consummation of that attraction? Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands, if that is as far as they ever take it?

While you may be right, I can only hope that the church's standards are not equivalent to the HC.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It illustrates that the Church's problem with homosexuality goes well beyond the sex act. How often to we hear the refrain that there is no sin in same-sex attraction, just in the ultimate sexual consummation of that attraction? Is it a sin for a homosexual couple to hold hands, if that is as far as they ever take it?

To the church, saying SSA is not a sin, is like saying a passing thought of a naked beautiful woman is not a sin, if not dwelt upon by the thinker.

However, love, LOVE, LOVE is a very different thing. And for a man to love another man is horrifying, and means that SSA has gone too far, and is now devilish and evil.

Why is holding hands so offensive and worthy of priesthood intervention? Because it indicates love. And if a man can truly love a man, in the true sense of love, then there is no God.

It's really as simple as that.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To the church, saying SSA is not a sin, is like saying a passing thought of a naked beautiful woman is not a sin, if not dwelt upon by the thinker.

However, love, LOVE, LOVE is a very different thing. And for a man to love another man is horrifying, and means that SSA has gone too far, and is now devilish and evil.

Why is holding hands so offensive and worthy of priesthood intervention? Because it indicates love. And if a man can truly love a man, in the true sense of love, then there is no God.

It's really as simple as that.

You seem pretty worked up about this issue.

Being the activist that you are, why not write a letter to the FP and lay out your argument for them? That kind of courage would be exemplary.

Have you shared these concerns with any local or regional Church authorities?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

well once you don't beat them to death and tie them to a fence post in Wyoming, they will be asking to not be killed. Once not killed, they will ask not to be beaten. Once not beaten they will ask not to be harassed. Once not harassed, they will ask to be ignored and allowed to live. Once ignored and allowed to live, they will be asked to be treated as normal human beings. Once treated as normal human beings, they will ask to be able to associate in public. Once able to associate in public they will ask to be able to hold hands and kiss in public. Once able to hold hands and kiss in public, they will ask not to be arrested for having sex in their own home. Once not arrested for having sex in their own home, they will ask that people realize they can be committed couples. Once realized that they can be committed couples, they will ask for legal rights such as hospital visitation. Once able to have legal rights such as hospital visitation, they will ask for rights to be bundled in the form of civil unions. Once rights are bundled in the form of civil unions, they will ask that they be given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions. Once given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions, they will be married.

And the minions of hell will be loosed upon the earth, daughters ravaged, sons raped, and horses loosed to run wild and trample the crops of man, death and starvation the result of the sins of the world.

Got it. It really is a slippery slope.

It's a shame they came out so quickly against civil unions. I think it could have been a reasonable compromise.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To the church, saying SSA is not a sin, is like saying a passing thought of a naked beautiful woman is not a sin, if not dwelt upon by the thinker.

However, love, LOVE, LOVE is a very different thing. And for a man to love another man is horrifying, and means that SSA has gone too far, and is now devilish and evil.

Why is holding hands so offensive and worthy of priesthood intervention? Because it indicates love. And if a man can truly love a man, in the true sense of love, then there is no God.

It's really as simple as that.

Is that true? I don't think so. Emotional attachment is not the same as physical comsummation. Holding hands may or may not be a probelm, but it is certainly not some Rubicon-esque trip wire for church discipline.