Whatever that Red Square


MorningStar
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is wrong with being a member and supporting gay marriage? As a member and a believer and follower of christ, I firmly beleive that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also belive in loving everyone and free agency. Even when that agency is used inccorectly, it is a part of learning in this life.

Maybe I am naive, but if two people love eachother, why can they not form a family with eachother and have kids. Are there not disfunctional heterosexual couples? Can a loving homosexual couple raise a family fine? I believe they can. I also know from a young age some childeren develope same sex attraction. It is not because how they were raised or any imbalance in body development. Its as natural for a person with same sex attraction to love the same sex as it is for a heterosexual to love the opposite sex. So we condition homosexuals to be attracted to the opposite sex or simply deny it as natural? Its something I think we do not have alot of understanding of.

Call it a liberal agenda or whatever that has lead to this point in our time of legalizing gay marriage. I do not see gay marriage as a sign of doom is near because of this or that the faithful have turned against christ. I see it as a step forward from backwords thinking. Maybe its the hate that is developed from people on both sides of the aisle that endangers society? Both are not all guilty, but there are individuals on both sides who are ignorant and will not love the other because of lifestyle and beliefe. I was delighted to hear what the church had to say in there message. I fully agree.

A same sex couple now leagalized under the status of marriage raising a family under state law. I can live with that, I understand. A same sex couple marrying in the temple or being sealed is something entirely different for me. It is not what we believe or live by. To marry in the temple you have to be clean and ready. Its a task that is truely hard but promising. Again maybe I a am naive and young. This is my opinion and where I stand. I respect all the opinions in here to. People should stand for what they believe and thats always acceptable as long as both sides can be agreeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think this is an interesting article and I definitely agree with this quote.

Quote:

You want to know why most Mormons are worried about the government redefining marriage? It isn’t because they hate gay people. It is because the last time the government redefined the definition of marriage, Mormons got screwed over, imprisoned, invaded, and had their property confiscated for not following along with the federal government’s definition of marriage. The feds said you have to perform marriages like we tell you to, or you’re not a real religion, and we will throw you in prison. And for the people who say this could never happen, that’s super comforting, since it has before. So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds.

Not sure if I quoted you correctly anddnex but thank you for that quote. I have thought about that. If the change in definitions and law would then climax to an attack on the church and what we believe, aswell as other organizations. This scenario has happened alot and not just for our church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong with being a member and supporting gay marriage? As a member and a believer and follower of christ, I firmly beleive that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also belive in loving everyone and free agency. Even when that agency is used inccorectly, it is a part of learning in this life.

Maybe I am naive, but if two people love eachother, why can they not form a family with eachother and have kids. Are there not disfunctional heterosexual couples? Can a loving homosexual couple raise a family fine? I believe they can. I also know from a young age some childeren develope same sex attraction. It is not because how they were raised or any imbalance in body development. Its as natural for a person with same sex attraction to love the same sex as it is for a heterosexual to love the opposite sex. So we condition homosexuals to be attracted to the opposite sex or simply deny it as natural? Its something I think we do not have alot of understanding of.

Call it a liberal agenda or whatever that has lead to this point in our time of legalizing gay marriage. I do not see gay marriage as a sign of doom is near because of this or that the faithful have turned against christ. I see it as a step forward from backwords thinking. Maybe its the hate that is developed from people on both sides of the aisle that endangers society? Both are not all guilty, but there are individuals on both sides who are ignorant and will not love the other because of lifestyle and beliefe. I was delighted to hear what the church had to say in there message. I fully agree.

A same sex couple now leagalized under the status of marriage raising a family under state law. I can live with that, I understand. A same sex couple marrying in the temple or being sealed is something entirely different for me. It is not what we believe or live by. To marry in the temple you have to be clean and ready. Its a task that is truely hard but promising. Again maybe I a am naive and young. This is my opinion and where I stand. I respect all the opinions in here to. People should stand for what they believe and thats always acceptable as long as both sides can be agreeable.

The Family Proclamation says the disintegration of the family will lead to the calamities foretold by prophets. If you are a member of the church and you support the disintegration of the family, you are contributing to the calamities that everyone will experience. That would include other things in addition to condoning gay marriage - abuse, infidelity, addiction, having children out of wedlock, shacking up, etc.

Every child is entitled to a mother and a father - the two people who made them whenever possible. Gay couples didn't make those children. Often neither of them did and other times they either bought sperm or rented a woman's uterus. I think it is one of the most selfish things in the world to intentionally deprive a child of a mother and a father. That screwed up heterosexuals exist doesn't excuse this trend and I think it's an extra slap in the face to infertile heterosexual couples that homosexuals would act like they are in the same position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am naive, but if two people love eachother, why can they not form a family with eachother and have kids. Are there not disfunctional heterosexual couples?

Well...because they can't "have" kids for one...they can adopt or use a surrogate, but they cannot procreate.And if love is the only criteria, then why limit marriage to "two" people who love each other? Further, it perpetuates the notion that pop culture has so carefully crafted that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. Generations from now, (if the Savior hasn't returned) what will the impact of that be in the family as God intended?

I have heard time and again, that being gay isn't about sex, it is about "love". I love my wife and I dare say that if sex weren't involved we would be quite content with being friends.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong with being a member and supporting gay marriage? As a member and a believer and follower of christ, I firmly beleive that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also belive in loving everyone and free agency. Even when that agency is used inccorectly, it is a part of learning in this life.

Have you ever heard the word "enabler"? You might wish to look it up.

It is no longer simply a matter of "teaching them correct principles and allowing them to govern themselves"- they are now insistent on teaching their incorrect principles to our children under the guise of "tolerance"- which curiously enough, always seems to be a one-way street.

We are expected to be tolerant of their positions and beliefs...but they are under no constraint to return the favor: witness the hate and bile heaped upon Chik-Fil-A (and currently upon the conservative justices of the Supreme Court).

I remember when the slogan was, "What we do in our bedroom is none of your business."

Now it's moved beyond their bedroom and into the public square- and a demand for public recognition and praise.

Now it's moved into our children's elementary school classrooms.

Maybe I am naive, but if two people love eachother, why can they not form a family with eachother and have kids. Are there not disfunctional heterosexual couples? Can a loving homosexual couple raise a family fine? I believe they can.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

You are not, however, entitled to radically redefine the most basic elements of society (and to force us to go along with your hare-brained scheme) based solely on your "hunch"- and that is precisely what the homophile lobby is demanding.

It is not because how they were raised or any imbalance in body development. Its as natural for a person with same sex attraction to love the same sex as it is for a heterosexual to love the opposite sex. So we condition homosexuals to be attracted to the opposite sex or simply deny it as natural? Its something I think we do not have alot of understanding of.

The key words (and only truths) in your statement are to be found in the last sentence.

YOU DON'T KNOW.

So why should we as a society turn cartwheels to support your theories? Why should we turn our society inside-out to entertain your experiment in social engineering?

Call it a liberal agenda or whatever that has lead to this point in our time of legalizing gay marriage. I do not see gay marriage as a sign of doom is near because of this or that the faithful have turned against christ.

And yet it is demonstrably a perversion of the moral law we are given.

Relationships that were once considered disfunctional, perverse, and sinful are now being celebrated as wholesome, healthy, and even desirable.

What was once unthinkable- and has been in every human society in history- is now being taught as morally equivalent to the order and law God himself set forth.

If that is not the literal fulfillment of the Scriptural account of calling evil "good" then the Scriptures have zero relevance and less legitimacy.

I see it as a step forward from backwords thinking.

Thank you for the condescending moral judgement.

Who knew that every prophet in history- including the Savior- was a "backwords" thinker.

To quote Han Solo (and with every bit as much sincerity as he displayed), "I'm glad you're hear to tell us these things."

A same sex couple now leagalized under the status of marriage raising a family under state law. I can live with that, I understand. A same sex couple marrying in the temple or being sealed is something entirely different for me. It is not what we believe or live by. To marry in the temple you have to be clean and ready. Its a task that is truely hard but promising. Again maybe I a am naive and young. This is my opinion and where I stand. I respect all the opinions in here to. People should stand for what they believe and thats always acceptable as long as both sides can be agreeable.

In less than three decades, the homosexual lobby has moved from the demand to be left alone to demanding our praise and approbation- as well as control of what we teach our children.

They have "evolved" from demanding privacy to demanding that we celebrate and praise their lifestyles- and teach it to our children.

They are no longer content to live their lives as they see fit, but are now demanding and dictating that we approve of their choices- and are using the courts and the media to punish those who deviate from their new Gospel.

Anyone who thinks the homosexual (and moral relatavism) lobbies will be satisfied with state recognition and celebration of their perversion is not only deluding themselves but is also profoundly ignorant of history.

They will not rest until any semblance of criticism of their moral failings is delegitimized and eradicated.

Appeasement is the act of moral cowardice in which one throws the other ducks to the alligator in the hopes that he'll eat you last.

But devour you, he will, all the same.

It's simply dismaying to see how many self-professing Latter-day Saints would rather be praised as "enlightened" embracers of Babylon than derided as "backwords" followers of Christ.

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard the word "enabler"? You might wish to look it up.

Insulting

The key words (and only truths) in your statement are to be found in the last sentence.

Insulting

Who knew that every prophet in history- including the Savior- was a "backwords" thinker.

Jesus had no stated stand on homosexuality or same sex marriage.

It's simply dismaying to see how many self-professing Latter-day Saints would rather be praised as "enlightened" embracers of Babylon than derided as "backwords" followers of Christ.

Insulting

It is possible to carry on a conversation without insults.

Today I reposted this quote from Addennex(sp?) onto facebook.

"You want to know why most Mormons are worried about the government redefining marriage? It isn’t because they hate gay people. It is because the last time the government redefined the definition of marriage, Mormons got screwed over, imprisoned, invaded, and had their property confiscated for not following along with the federal government’s definition of marriage. The feds said you have to perform marriages like we tell you to, or you’re not a real religion, and we will throw you in prison. And for the people who say this could never happen, that’s super comforting, since it has before. So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds."

I had a very nice conversation with one of my very liberal friends. If everyone was as nice as she was there would be no fear of being forced into situations we can not tolerate as a religion. She is a strong advocate of free agency even as a nonmember. I left the conversation feeling uplifted and wishful that more genuinely good people existed in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, it seems to me he has made his opinion on the matter exceedingly clear.

The point annewandering is trying to make is that there are no quotes of Jesus' teaching in the New Testament on homosexuality (they are only found in the epistles), but one could argue that Jesus is speaking in Lev. 18:22, Deut. 23:17, etc.

I had a very nice conversation with one of my very liberal friends. If everyone was as nice as she was there would be no fear of being forced into situations we can not tolerate as a religion. She is a strong advocate of free agency even as a nonmember. I left the conversation feeling uplifted and wishful that more genuinely good people existed in this world.

I also find it a little sad that the conversations that we need to have the most are often the hardest to maintain without devolving to mud-slinging.

Edited by LittleWyvern
Help! I've forgotten how to grammar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to carry on a conversation without insults.

Anne, your last bout of board-nannying and finger-wagging bought us both a week's suspension.

I have no desire to be goaded into repeating that exercise.

Unless you have something substantive to offer, why not take your own advice and put me on "ignore"?

After this post, I am extending you that same courtesy.

The simple fact is that you are selective in both your "facts" and in your assessment of what is and is not "offensive".

You called me out for allegedly "insulting" NoxNulla- but have said nothing about the insults NoxNulla himself offered- let alone those others have offered both within this thread and elsewhere.

That suggests that your indignation is driven more by political bias and personal animosity than anything else.

I had a very nice conversation with one of my very liberal friends.

Give that she agrees with you, I shouldn't doubt it.

Unfortunately, you and I do not agree- and so you hold me to a very different standard.

I left the conversation feeling uplifted and wishful that more genuinely good people existed in this world.

Implying, of course, that- solely by dint of our disagreement and your animosity towards me- that I am not a "genuinely good" person.

What was that about "insults", again?

Now, onto substance:

The notion that Christ and his servants DID NOT and DO NOT have a position about gay marriage is simply stunning in either its duplicity or its Scriptural ignorance.

Christ (or Jehovah, if you prefer) was the law-giver of the Old Testament.

The dictums laid down in the Old Testament vis-a-vis homosexual fornication are HIS.

When the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints- the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak in his name, our Scriptures demand that we treat them as if they were revealed by Christ's own lips.

Thus, Latter-day Saints can absolutely assume that the Proclamation on the Family IS Christ's position.

That- coupled with the fact that homosexual sexual conduct will result in excommunication- is a clear and unequivocal statement of both the Church's position and the Lord's.

Unless, of course, one does not actually sustain these men...

Speaking as a faithful Latter-day Saint, your claim simply does not hold up to substantive, rational analysis.

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's please leave questioning the faith and testimony of other people out of this discussion.

Indeed. Shall we leave the strawmen out as well?

I am not questioning Anne's faith or testimony- only her reasoning.

Implicit in your argument (and mine) is the notion that Latter-day Saints do actually sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators.

With that established as a foundation, how then can one look at the policies, practices, and official Proclamations of the Church and still state with a straight face that the Lord has not made his opinion clear?

It is the very fact that she does sustain these men that makes her argument so disingenuous.

Edited by selek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be so kind as to give me that quote! I would love to have it. Thanks ahead of time. :)

"That lifestyle [homosexuality] is not normal...homosexual behavior is sinful."

Or do you argue that an apostle is not in fact authorized to speak for Christ in such matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sighs. Ok first let me clarify. I was happy to see that a person who is not LDS and is very liberal was such a nice person on the question of the fear that we would be persecuted over the issue of marriage. She was horrified that Van Buren and Polk were not impeached for their stands. Period. If it appeared that I was insulting anyone I want to make it clear that I was not. Unless it was my other liberal friends who I mostly agree with but not on redefining marriage or on same sex marriage. Or abortion for that matter generally.

I do believe that same sex marriage and homosexual activities are wrong/sin and yes it has been made clear that is the case numerous times by various general authorities and the bible. What I havent seen is anything directly attributed to Jesus in the Bible that I can use as a reference. I am pretty sure there isnt but would love to have one. If there is I am sure that Vort is the man to find it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share