The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.

[_The Dude]

Just can't answer my particular question, can you? It just grates, doesn't it, to engage in dialog with a member of the Church (remember -- the "liar" of "liars") where you are fearful of being pinned into a corner?

I reiterate my question posed above to you.

I went beyond your particular question. I said they should be criticized for calling it a sin, so of course they should be criticized (by those who agree with my POV) for barring fellowship. (Duh!)

I am engaging in dialogue. Just answering "yes" or "no" is not dialogue.

[_GoodK]

The Church feels it has a moral imperative under the First Amendment to encourage its members to support an amendment to the California constitution. It has a belief founded upon scripture and divine revelation. The wall of separation of church and state goes only one way.

Translation: Religious people can't keep beliefs to themselves. It isn't enough to limit your own life to silly rules, you have to make sure all your neighbors do too.

[_GoodK]

Never blame your lack of education on technology.

Is that bitterness I detect? I wish you could see the smile on my face :)

Even if I did lack an education, it would have nothing to do with a misplaced apostrophe.

Nice try though. I'm glad to see you haven't given up cyber-bullying online critics.

[_rcrocket]

Just can't answer my particular question, can you? It just grates, doesn't it, to engage in dialog with a member of the Church (remember -- the "liar" of "liars") where you are fearful of being pinned into a corner?

I reiterate my question posed above to you.

I went beyond your particular question. I said they should be criticized for calling it a sin, so of course they should be criticized (by those who agree with my POV) for barring fellowship. (Duh!)

No reason to get your dander up. Gad (as in a tribe of Israel as opposed to a euphemism), you have a thinner skin that I thought.

So, the Brotherhood of Elk should be criticized for barring members who decline to wear elk antlers in meetings?

The question is trivial in the context of the argument, but when it comes to an organization whose faith is founded on scripture as its constitution, and it has every right under the principles of most democratic governments to exist, it seems only right -- from a personal rights standpoint and a right of assembly and worship -- to define who and who cannot be in full fellowship. If it wants to exclude adulterers, what is wrong with that?

I mean, if I wanted to, I ought to be able to join a Christians' only athletic club (what the YMCA used to be) and participate in lectures and activities centered in Christian fellowship principles.

But, who are you -- on the outside -- to tell a Christian organization what its membership requirements should and should not be? You lack standing.

[_Sethbag]

I think the church should hold out as hardline bigots for as long as possible. The longer the better. The best result would be for the LDS church to be the very last institution on the face of the earth to change their ways and accept homosexuals and their relationships as normal human behavior.

Well, you really haven't answered my question directly. My question must be a hard one to answer, no? Should the Church admit practicing homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?

Yes. Support gay marriage and then the church can admit married gays who are faithful to their spouses, and those who aren't can be treated by the church the same way heterosexual fornicators and adulterers are.

It's pretty easy to see why the church has to oppose gay marriage. If gay marriage comes about, then the logic of treating married and faithful gays the same as they treat married and faithful straights is pretty damn obvious, and by resisting that their bigotry will be all that much more obvious.

[_rcrocket]

Never blame your lack of education on technology.

Is that bitterness I detect? I wish you could see the smile on my face :)

Even if I did lack an education, it would have nothing to do with a misplaced apostrophe.

Nice try though. I'm glad to see you haven't given up cyber-bullying online critics.

No bitterness at all. I am here for fun and enlightenment.

[_rcrocket]

I think the church should hold out as hardline bigots for as long as possible. The longer the better. The best result would be for the LDS church to be the very last institution on the face of the earth to change their ways and accept homosexuals and their relationships as normal human behavior.

Well, you really haven't answered my question directly. My question must be a hard one to answer, no? Should the Church admit practicing homosexuals to full faith and fellowship?

Yes. Support gay marriage and then the church can admit married gays who are faithful to their spouses, and those who aren't can be treated by the church the same way heterosexual fornicators and adulterers are.

It's pretty easy to see why the church has to oppose gay marriage. If gay marriage comes about, then the logic of treating married and faithful gays the same as they treat married and faithful straights is pretty damn obvious, and by resisting that their bigotry will be all that much more obvious.

Do you really think the Church's stance against homosexuality is one based purely on bigotry? Can the same be said about its stance against adulterers, fornicators, child molesters, wife beaters, and coffee drinkers?

[_beastie]

Do you really think the Church's stance against homosexuality is one based purely on bigotry? Can the same be said about its stance against adulterers, fornicators, child molesters, wife beaters, and coffee drinkers?

gee, didn't you mean "the church's stance against homosexual behavior"? Everything else you cited was a behavior. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

I guess you just forgot to add the "wink wink" words.

[Anonymous]

As to whether it's reasonable for you to believe in fairy tails, and for you to choose to associate with others who share at least some non-trivial subset of those same beliefs, the answer is yes. You're an American. You're free to believe whatever goddamn nonsense.

I think it's allowed for the Mormon Church to refuse to admit practicing gays, married or not. I don't think it's reasonable. What's reasonable and what's allowed under the Constitution aren't necessarily going to be judged to be the same. Since the Quorum of the Twelve Imposters and the Profit haven't called me up to ask my opinion on the subject, I'd say that what I think is reasonable or not for them to do is completely irrelevent as far as the church and its dupes/believers are concerned.

[_rcrocket]

Do you really think the Church's stance against homosexuality is one based purely on bigotry? Can the same be said about its stance against adulterers, fornicators, child molesters, wife beaters, and coffee drinkers?

gee, didn't you mean "the church's stance against homosexual behavior"? Everything else you cited was a behavior. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

I guess you just forgot to add the "wink wink" words.

Do you think the church's stance against adulterers (they can't have fellowship) is wrong?