Oaks on same sex marriage

[huckelberry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhjpdzZHq3o

I was led to this Mormon stories episode which is much longer than I am inclined to watch anywhere close to completion. I was very puzzled by the premise. This same sex couple got called up to a disciplinary counsel and are all surprised. The statement is made that the church has said that same sex marriages will be treated the same as traditional male female marriage. I am astounded that I have not heard a word about such a change in policy. I had heard of no change from the traditional view that homosexual relations are wrong as in forbidden.

About as up to date on church policy I am is what I see on this message board. Is there a change that has been ignored here. It is a subject which has received scrutiny here. I remember a change away from a draconic policy for treatment of children of same sex marriages. I have heard nothing about a move to acceptance of the same sex marriage.

[Rivendale]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhjpdzZHq3o

. This same sex couple got called up to a disciplinary counsel and are all surprised.

The shock is due to the fact they didn't live in the same state. They were hunted down without given due discourse. The information isn't about the rule but rather how the church had leaders lying about their motives.

[huckelberry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhjpdzZHq3o

. This same sex couple got called up to a disciplinary counsel and are all surprised.

The shock is due to the fact they didn't live in the same state. They were hunted down without given due discourse. The information isn't about the rule but rather how the church had leaders lying about their motives.

I am not pushing a particular view I am just curious. Rivendale, you may have misheard. Miridian and Boise are about 30 miles apart both in the state of Idaho. There was mention of living in a different stake, southern Idaho being Mormon enough to have lots of stakes.
I do not understand what you mean, due discourse. I though disciplinary counsel was called upon church leader discresion. I admit I did not listen long enough for any details about learders statements of motives. (?)

[Rivendale]

The shock is due to the fact they didn't live in the same state. They were hunted down without given due discourse. The information isn't about the rule but rather how the church had leaders lying about their motives.

I am not pushing a particular view I am just curious. Rivendale, you may have misheard. Miridian and Boise are about 30 miles apart both in the state of Idaho. There was mention of living in a different stake, southern Idaho being Mormon enough to have lots of stakes.
I do not understand what you mean, due discourse. I though disciplinary counsel was called upon church leader discresion. I admit I did not listen long enough for any details about learders statements of motives. (?)

It was a classic example of lying to protect people above them. That is about it.

[huckelberry]

I am not pushing a particular view I am just curious. Rivendale, you may have misheard. Miridian and Boise are about 30 miles apart both in the state of Idaho. There was mention of living in a different stake, southern Idaho being Mormon enough to have lots of stakes.
I do not understand what you mean, due discourse. I though disciplinary counsel was called upon church leader discretion. I admit I did not listen long enough for any details about leaders statements of motives. (?)

It was a classic example of lying to protect people above them. That is about it.

Sorry if I am being slow but , protect them from what on earth? This gets closer to what I am wondering about. Was there any reason they would not expect disfellowship? I am not saying I think that is the best or a good result it just what my previous knowledge says would be expected.

[Rivendale]

It was a classic example of lying to protect people above them. That is about it.

Sorry if I am being slow but , protect them from what on earth? This gets closer to what I am wondering about. Was there any reason they would not expect disfellowship? I am not saying I think that is the best or a good result it just what my previous knowledge says would be expected.

If the leadership would have just said you are in a homosexual marriage and you're done that would be it. But they created a tapestry of BS that tried to make themselves not responsible. They tried multiple times to distance themselves from the real reason for being excommunicated. They were just assholes. That is it.

[huckelberry]

Sorry if I am being slow but , protect them from what on earth? This gets closer to what I am wondering about. Was there any reason they would not expect disfellowship? I am not saying I think that is the best or a good result it just what my previous knowledge says would be expected.

If the leadership would have just said you are in a homosexual marriage and you're done that would be it. But they created a tapestry of B.S. that tried to make themselves not responsible. They tried multiple times to distance themselves from the real reason for being excommunicated. They were just assholes. That is it.

Rivendale, ok, that sounds weird but ... I guess I could have listened further and received more detail.They did note early on, mixed messages.

[dannyg43]

Before the Court’s official decision to overturn Roe v Wade was released, President Biden was already warning that same-sex “marriage” would be next. As he said in May, “It’s not just the brutality of taking away a woman's right to her body ... but it also, if you read the opinion ... basically says there's no such thing as the right to privacy. If that holds ... mark my words: "They are going to go after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.”

[dannyg43]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhjpdzZHq3o

I was led to this Mormon stories episode which is much longer than I am inclined to watch anywhere close to completion. I was very puzzled by the premise. This same sex couple got called up to a disciplinary counsel and are all surprised. The statement is made that the church has said that same sex marriages will be treated the same as traditional male female marriage. I am astounded that I have not heard a word about such a change in policy. I had heard of no change from the traditional view that homosexual relations are wrong as in forbidden.

About as up to date on church policy I am is what I see on this message board. Is there a change that has been ignored here. It is a subject which has received scrutiny here. I remember a change away from a draconic policy for treatment of children of same sex marriages. I have heard nothing about a move to acceptance of the same sex marriage.

Sodomite laws began to be used in a new way, distinctly against gay people, in the late 1960's. As the young gay rights movement began to make headway, and the social condemnation of being gay began to weaken, social conservatives began to invoke sodomy laws as a justification for discrimination.In nine states, sodomy laws were explicitly rewritten so that they only applied to gay people. Kansas was the first state to do that in 1969. Kansas was followed in the 1970's by Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas. In two states, Maryland and Oklahoma, courts decided that sodomy laws could not be applied to private heterosexual conduct, leaving what amounted to same-sex only laws in effect.
In many other states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Washington, government agencies and courts treated sodomite laws that, as written, applied to all couples, straight and gay, as if they were aimed at gay people.