The church has spoken...

[exUte]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

Ask exie. He seems to think that he knows the definition of supporting and sustaining the Prophet better than even the Prophet himself does.

Let's hear your definition most enlightened one. I know for one that sustaining the prophet on this issue was very clear. When the first presidency sign a letter and ask bishops to read it to their congregations and support it, I would say that is sustaining.

I know it's disappointing when you can't eat from the gospel buffet line and pick and choose to suit your fancy.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The question is manifold. Are they subjectively bigoted based on Solon's interpretation? based upon the community standard? based upon a seeming third party objective standard?

Will all three examinations arrive at the same result?

I think gays are bigoted toward religion.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by exUte

Let's hear your definition most enlightened one. I know for one that sustaining the prophet on this issue was very clear. When the first presidency sign a letter and ask bishops to read it to their congregations and support it, I would say that is sustaining.

I know it's disappointing when you can't eat from the gospel buffet line and pick and choose to suit your fancy.

You might want to hit the Sermon on the Mount portion of the line next time through.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by exUte

What legal right would marriage have given them that they don't already have?

It would do away with "separate but equal" civil unions. It would foster tolerance over time. You may be shocked to learn that even today, gays face persecution. Has the repression of women been reduced since the women's suffrage movement? Has the persecution of blacks decreased since the civil rights movement of the 1960s? I am sure gays hope to be accepted as full members of society. The more that they are viewed by society as normal, the less persecution they will face. Being allowed to marry helps in this regard.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Many on this board were in opposition to prop 8 and they had every right to do so and could have contributed $$s and time to further their position.

The problem is that when you are told "the prophet has asked us to treat this as our generation's gettysburg" you are treated as a pariah if you don't come down squarely on the side of the church.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by exUte

Let's hear your definition most enlightened one. I know for one that sustaining the prophet on this issue was very clear. When the first presidency sign a letter and ask bishops to read it to their congregations and support it, I would say that is sustaining.

I know it's disappointing when you can't eat from the gospel buffet line and pick and choose to suit your fancy.

Sweet mercy I'm sick of reading your opinion on prop 8. For how many more days can I look forward to you telling us all that you supported the brethren on this issue (from Utah and knowing no gay people)? I'd just like to remind you that your "support" is virtually meaningless on this issue. You don't like any gays, you probably don't even know any gays and I doubt you've had this much fun in years. That's been the saddest part of this whole affair; seeing people like you take such joy in the task.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Sweet mercy I'm sick of reading your opinion on prop 8. For how many more days can I look forward to you telling us all that you supported the brethren on this issue (from Utah and knowing no gay people)? I'd just like to remind you that your "support" is virtually meaningless on this issue. You don't like any gays, you probably don't even know any gays and I doubt you've had this much fun in years. That's been the saddest part of this whole affair; seeing people like you take such joy in the task.

Amen, Brother Steel.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Sorry Lebowski - nothing hollow about the victory. It is good to see people stand up for something they believe to be a moral issue against a group of very influential liberals. The only cost was to those who contributed $s and time to the cause and I appreciate their efforts. Those who are the Church's enemies today, were enemies yesterday, and will be enemies tomorrow. The Church's position on this issue has been well documented for years. The Church took a stand and encouraged its members to support the prop with time and $s. Many Church members responded positively and excercised their rights as Americans to do so. Some did so because of a personal belief that it was the right thing to do, some did so because of a sense of duty, and some may have done it because of ignorance, yet, they answered the call of their Church leaders and invested their dollars and time. Similar to what the Youngs did in opposition of prop 8. Many on this board were in opposition to prop 8 and they had every right to do so and could have contributed $$s and time to further their position.

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

I read your post in the other thread regarding your views on homosexuality and gay marriage and frankly I just don't find your reasons very thoughtful or compelling.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

The Church is not going to suffer any long term consequences for its position on gay marriage. Again, its position has been well documented for years.

It's position has been "well-doumented for years"? Which position is that? The current church position that gays are welcome in the church as long as they are celibate? Or the old position that being gay is a choice and anyone who is a homosexual is in a state of sin?

Don't kid yourself. The church's position is in a state of evolution. We are in a period of entrenchment, but it won't last forever.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

The problem is that when you are told "the prophet has asked us to treat this as our generation's gettysburg" you are treated as a pariah if you don't come down squarely on the side of the church.

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?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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

I read your post in the other thread regarding your views on homosexuality and gay marriage and frankly I just don't find your reasons very thoughtful or compelling.



It's position has been "well-doumented for years"? Which position is that? The current church position that gays are welcome in the church as long as they are celibate? Or the old position that being gay is a choice and anyone who is a homosexual is in a state of sin?

Don't kid yourself. The church's position is in a state of evolution. We are in a period of entrenchment, but it won't last forever.

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