A tale of two First Presidency letters ....

[_antishock8]

Oh, you are. You most definitely are. *What a weird thing to wish for...*

Careful, you are displaying your complete illiteracy. Francis of Assisi; we should all be like him.

You are such a douchebag. Want me to point out my Camus reference that you never would have noticed? How about some other obscure quote?

So. Not only do you call people fags (in Italian), but you're arrogant, too. Wow. That Mormon Jesus stuff just works wonders with you, dun't it?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Some of you may remember Jeffrey Nielsen. A couple of years ago he was fired from BYU for writing a letter to the editor opposing the Church's support for the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. Now he has written "an open letter to California Mormons" in response to the Church's directive (to be read this week in sacramant meetings), which can be read at this link:

http://www.affirmation.org/media/2008_06_24.shtml

[_Jason Bourne]

Some of you may remember Jeffrey Nielsen. A couple of years ago he was fired from BYU for writing a letter to the editor opposing the Church's support for the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. Now he has written "an open letter to California Mormons" in response to the Church's directive (to be read this week in sacramant meetings), which can be read at this link:

http://www.affirmation.org/media/2008_06_24.shtml

I have mixed feelings about this. There is a lot I sympathize with in his letter. On the other hand it does not seem to me that this is simply a religious issue nor is the Church's position based solely on religious beliefs. It seems to me that traditional heterosexual marriage is a key factor in social stability and norms in western culture. The nuclear family seems well suited to raising children and contributing citizens. It seems that with the break down of family many problems of society have increased. The government seems to believe this as well because it does and has provided benefits to marriad couples and to families with children that it does not give to single people. I think this also is a position of the Church as it seems very concerned about the negative results of continued deterioration of the family.

Will letting homosexuals marry contribute to the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family of man and wife? I do not know. It could. It might not. If gays are really born gay then it might not matter because they would not marry in the traditional sense anyway. Is the church concerned that if gays marry there will be pressure to accpet such marriages in the LDS church? Maybe. Not sure.

I don't know. It is a difficult issue and as I have come to know some gay people and put real people to this issue it has become more complex for me at least.

[_Jersey Girl]

Will letting homosexuals marry contribute to the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family of man and wife? I do not know.

In order for same sex marriage to contribute to the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family of a man and wife, heterosexuals would have to begin marrying same sex partners.

How does that make sense?

[_Jersey Girl]

The whole "threat to the sanctity of marriage" idea that some of the more fundamental EV's wave around makes no intellectual sense at all.

1. Are they afraid that hetero's will somehow begin to choose to marry same sex individuals? (Does that make sense?)
2. Are they afraid that same sex unions undermine the traditional marriage? (Who's marriage is undermined and in what possible
way?)

The biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage is heterosexual marriage partners who screw with eachother in a variety of ways and pay lipservice to the concept of committment.

[_Chap]

I am a married heterosexual, and believe firmly that for all its flaws a long-term committed relationship between the mother and father of a child, expressed in a socially sanctioned way such as marriage, is a very good way to raise children.

I know some homosexual people who have contracted legal unions under a number of different legal jurisdictions. My reaction? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and in fact their wish to commit themselves makes me feel just a little bit more secure in my own commitment.

Sometimes I get the impression that some people think that if homosexual unions were able to be given legal force, I and people like me would say

"Heckl!? Yah mean I coulda married a MAN? I'm gonna give that godamm woman and her kids the boot, get me a guy and marry him for some hot homo action!!!!".

But I assure you that this is not the case, and on the whole I think that legalised homosexual partnerships are no threat to heterosexual marriage at all.

If you think I am wrong, please explain why.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It seems to me that traditional heterosexual marriage is a key factor in social stability and norms in western culture. The nuclear family seems well suited to raising children and contributing citizens.

My $.02, for what it's worth:

Heterosexuals have done a horrible job with marriage. In today's world, over 50% of marriages end in divorce. And over 50% of children today are born outside of wedlock. I honestly don't believe that homosexuals can 'hurt' marriage any more than heterosexuals already have. The so-called "nuclear family" just doesn't exist for most.

It seems that with the break down of family many problems of society have increased. The government seems to believe this as well because it does and has provided benefits to marriad couples and to families with children that it does not give to single people. I think this also is a position of the Church as it seems very concerned about the negative results of continued deterioration of the family.

But I don't see how extending civil marriage to homosexuals, including gov't benefits, hurts anyone -- I only see it strengthening an entire segment of society who can now marry and receive the benefits others already have.

Will letting homosexuals marry contribute to the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family of man and wife? I do not know. It could. It might not.

I personally do not believe it will hurt the concept or institution of family, but only strengthen it.

Is the church concerned that if gays marry there will be pressure to accpet such marriages in the LDS church? Maybe. Not sure.

Like with blacks and the priesthood, there will always be pressure on the LDS Church to accept gay marriage, but the law can't force the church to do so.

For me the fundamental issue is this: can the government discriminate between citizens, based on citizens' sexual orientation, when it comes to a fundamental right (such as marriage), including giving benefits based on marital status? I don't think it can. If the gov't can't treat everyone the same under the law, such as allowing marriage for only those of a certain orientation, then the gov't ought to get out of the marriage business altogether (including any and all benefits based on marital status), and leave it to religion to handle marriage however they want (discrimination included). Unless the gov't can treat all the same with this fundamental right, civil marriage should be done away with and let the whole thing become a religious sacrament/ordinance.

[_Jason Bourne]

Will letting homosexuals marry contribute to the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family of man and wife? I do not know.

In order for same sex marriage to contribute to the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family of a man and wife, heterosexuals would have to begin marrying same sex partners.

How does that make sense?

The point was more rhetorical or thinking out loud. Did you miss my next sentence where I said:

It could. It might not. If gays are really born gay then it might not matter because they would not marry in the traditional sense anyway.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I am a married heterosexual, and believe firmly that for all its flaws a long-term committed relationship between the mother and father of a child, expressed in a socially sanctioned way such as marriage, is a very good way to raise children.

I know some homosexual people who have contracted legal unions under a number of different legal jurisdictions. My reaction? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and in fact their wish to commit themselves makes me feel just a little bit more secure in my own commitment.

Sometimes I get the impression that some people think that if homosexual unions were able to be given legal force, I and people like me would say

"Heckl!? Yah mean I coulda married a MAN? I'm gonna give that godamm woman and her kids the boot, get me a guy and marry him for some hot homo action!!!!".

But I assure you that this is not the case, and on the whole I think that legalised homosexual partnerships are no threat to heterosexual marriage at all.

If you think I am wrong, please explain why.

I don't think you're wrong at all, Chap.

Like you, I don't feel threatened by homosexual partnerships in the least.

And, since legalized partnerships are generally more stable and fulfilling, then I don't see that there's anything anyone stands to lose by legalizing gay marriage.

KA

[_ludwigm]

While I am reading that dirty name callings and personal attacks I could vomit.

.

.

.

.

.

.

To the topic:

There is a corporation, called Church by members and Cult by many outsiders.

Less than half of the membership are from US.
More than 90% of the highest leadership are from US.

More than half of the membership don't know, what the words democrat and republican mean for You. ( X'th amendment, constitution of US, I can list many)
And they don't care, even some of them are handled in D&C. I could use more rude words but I don't.

What will be the next step?
Will they say to hungarians, germans, philippians, chileans, in all ~160 language the Book of Mormon was translated to, what should they do in their country?

Does become Utah or the whole US a world well described in Orwell's "1984"? ( Substitute the word Party with Church and You get it! )
I - we - don't care. It is Your country, Your state.


After ordering what to eat, what to drink, what stupid underwear use, come the others.
What to vote? Ordered.
What to think? Ordered. You know, the thought police will product the result.

The limit is the starry sky. This was one of the shibboleths during the wildest socialism.



I'm sorry.