posted
I've never seen any one argue well against SSM without specifically using religious strictures. I'd sure love to - can you give us an argument, Scott?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Saying that it's about rights over and over doesn't make it true, Javert.
According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.
I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
I think part of the disagreement here results from a difference in definitions. I use a slightly stronger definition of equality than you do (stronger as in everything that is equal under my definition is also equal under yours but not vice versa). I use "equal" to mean "identical" whereas you seem to be using it to mean "equivalent" (this should sound familiar if you know computer science). In the case of civil union vs. marriage, a civil union is equivalent but not identical to a marriage. In other words, we would say that a civil union is equivalent to a marriage but we wouldn't say that a civil union is a marriage. Under the stronger definition of equality, a person who has access to civil unions does not have the same civil rights as a person who has access to marriage. In general, I think we should strive for the stronger definition of equality.
EDIT: This doesn't necessarily mean we need to provide legal marriage to same sex couples. As has already been pointed out, we can eliminate legal marriage altogether and leave marriage to religious institutions.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
More evidence that what people would be "losing" is the state's endorsement of their disapproval of people who don't choose to live like they do.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: People are naturally scared of the other and there's not really any greater other in our culture than the homosexual. ...
Not to detract from your main point, but I find this slightly unconvincing.
If you look at the 2007 gallup polls, the number of people prejudiced against homosexuals is 45%. Atheists are actually worse off at 55%.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you look at the 2007 gallup polls, the number of people prejudiced against homosexuals is 45%. Atheists are actually worse off at 55%.
That was a very constrained context. The question was "Would you vote for them for president?". I think it's a lot either to justify to ones-self constraining the civil liberties of gays than of atheists.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Watch the "Home Invasion" video on youtube. I don't think any reasonable person can say that video is not being deliberately dishonest in it's portrayal.
That video was an analogy, an artistic representation of the Church's intrusion in a civil matter, and disregard for the impact on the personal lives of same-sex couples (including those already legally wed). The missionaries are symbolic of the Church (as most people immediately associate them with the LDS church). The rifling through drawers, etc, represents intrusion of the Church into people's personal lives, the taking of the rings and ripping of the marriage contract represent the taking away of an existing right to marry.
The message of the video was not misleading - the LDS church DID get VERY involved in Proposition 8, and its members in CA were instructed to donate both time and money to this cause, and many did just that.
Imagine if a coalition of non-LDS churches tried to pass a law that, say, all weddings must take place in venues open to the public because marriage is a societal contract and should be publically witnessed. Just stop and imagine that for a moment, if temple marriage was just taken away and couldn't happen unless the temple was open to any spectator who might want to wander in. Wouldn't you feel like your personal life had been violated (regardless of the fact that they never actually entered your home)? Wouldn't it seem just like they wanted to take your rings and marriage certificate, because in reality they were trying to take away the things they represented?
quote:I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."
You missed a bit of your own quote: "letting others do as they will". Elder Maxwell's advice is about living the gospel in spite of scorn, in spite of your views being deemed old-fashioned. It is not about legislating morality so that all must live as you see fit. You live according to the dictates of your own conscience, AND SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE.
quote:I hate the emerging trend that when a believer cannot scientifically prove a belief, and says, "I can't prove I'm right, but I must vote my conscience and as God has directed me," that somehow those people are to be ignored, marginalized, or even disdained. Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.
Your right to believe as you choose should never be disdained. But the beliefs themselves? Of course they can be disdained. Beliefs don't warrant the same protection as people. Unless of course you live in California today and believe marriage should only occur between one man and one woman, because there people have actually succeeded, sadly, at legislating their religious beliefs so fully that they have taken away the right of others to act according to the dictates of their own conscience.
And it's a tangent I know, but to be honest I find the fact that the Church is supporting that definition hilarious, because the doctrine of the Church supports men being married to more than one woman in the eternities. In fact, in temple marriage terms, a man can be sealed to two or more women in this life. I have a friend in that very situation. He received a civil divorce from his first wife, but never got a temple divorce because he didn't want to erase the sealing between him and his kids. Then he married again, in the temple. He's sealed to both women and they're both alive. The Church is supporting a civil definition that contradicts its doctrine and policies.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: Its also a lot easier to constrain the civil liberties of gays, given that: a) atheists can pass as religious and still marry b) your laws were founded on ideals of religious tolerance among many different, but Christian, faiths. These days with many other faiths, its difficult to now change the laws to single-out only atheists
That said, if you have a poll comparing the two that you believe is better at capturing prejudice, then I'd be very interested.
Edit to add: Different poll, different question
quote: The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." The results from two of the most important questions were:
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...
posted
"Imagine if a coalition of non-LDS churches tried to pass a law that, say, all weddings must take place in venues open to the public because marriage is a societal contract and should be publically witnessed."
There are plenty of countries where you HAVE to get married by the government in public. The church honors that and then performs a sealing in the temple.
Why don't gays get a civil union and then go to their church or home and get joined, married, whatever term they want? It isn't so hard is it? Why do you feel the need to force YOUR way at the expense of what SOCIETY wants. Selfish.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I can admit that my position may not be right (obviously I don't think it's wrong, but I have been known to be mistaken from time to time, and I certainly can't see all the ends from all the beginnings). You don't seem to be able to admit that possibility, and that's what I find troubling.
And yet you are willing to insist that other people are required by law to abide by your position.
I am certainly willing to vote my conscience and allow democracy to work, despite my lack of absolute certainty, if that's what you mean. Should only people convinced of their own infallibility be allowed to vote? Or is it just in this special case?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hobsen: [QB] The LDS Church explicitly condemns hatred of persons with a homosexual orientation or practicing homosexuals...
Hatred is not the issue here. You don't have to hate someone to take away their rights. I think it's fair to say that the majority of gays/lesbians couldn't give a rat's patootey what the LDS Church feels towards them - they just want the Church to stay out of their private lives and away from their civil rights.
quote: Moreover, in practice, the LDS Church has only begun to grapple with these issues because gays were largely invisible in Utah until a few years ago, at least as compared to San Francisco.
Gays are sparse anywhere compared to SF. (Though actually I do live just three hours from the largest gay community in the world outside of SF.) The Church started dealing publically with these issues recently because people started to get more vocal about the number of gay LDS who commit suicide. Bishops have been tackling these issues for a long, long time. Not well, but for a long time.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. If someone proposes a solution in which homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages, I will support that in a heartbeat.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And your conscience determined you vote this way...why?
You are the one who has trouble with "certitude". My position is that, no matter what our "certitude" happens to be, we don't force other people to live by our particular religious rules unless we can show demonstrable harm if they don't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Why don't gays get a civil union and then go to their church or home and get joined, married, whatever term they want? It isn't so hard is it?
I'm sure there are gays who want recognition in churches too but that's not what being fought for right now and it's not a fight that I see them winning the courts. Right now the fight is for legalizing gay marriage.
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Why do you feel the need to force YOUR way at the expense of what SOCIETY wants. Selfish.
Your use of "force" seems completely vacuous. Legalizing gay marriage does not force you to change your beliefs or the way you live your life.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.
I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity.
So you see no problems with that? How reassuring. Do you actually not see the arrogance there?
This is not just about the rights you are so generously willing to see granted. This is also about the right to use the word 'marriage'. Marriage is an "institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple". It's like the water fountain argument someone made earlier. It's not relevant if the water is the same, or if the fountain is the same size or in the same locations. It is in the implied need for a separate water fountain that the denial of a person's humanity begins.
What is it about homosexuals that prompts you to keep the word marriage from them? Why it is important that their unions not wear the same label as yours? Why can't they drink at your water fountain?
Many religions have a building they refer to as a temple. The LDS church doesn't lay claim to the word, even though the temple is its most sacred location. In Hindu temples, people worship a plethora of heathen gods. I've been to several Buddhist temples in Japan and the level of commerce in those places contrasts sharply with the purpose and environment of an LDS temple. I'm sure that not a single 'temple' worldwide exactly mirrors the LDS temple. But so what? LDS temple patrons lose nothing as a result of these alternative definitions of the word. Those other worshippers, however, gain something by using it for themselves. The word has not only meaning to them individually, but also is understood in society to convey a certain level of respect and sacredness, even from those who think their beliefs are strange or abhorrent.
You can't just say that you are comfortable with granting the rights you choose to grant and withhold one that makes you squeamish. That's the nature of equality and rights - what you are 'comfortable with' isn't relevant, because your comfort isn't the goal.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are the one who has trouble with "certitude"
I am. I agree. I think a belief in one's own moral infallibility is likely to do greater harm to society than redefining marriage to include homosexual unions ever could.
Of course, I could be wrong about that.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did my assurance in a just and loving God and my belief that I have as much (or more) reason to believe that I am right about God's will regarding SSM as you do become a claim of moral infallibility?
You are twisting things. I am not sure if it is intentional or not.
Again, you have not put forth any justification (religious or secular) for denying the rights of people and you have denied the one I suggested.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is all a bit jumbled together, but the point is that: (a) ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway, and (b) those origins are not religious.
That those origins are not particularly religious has been part of my point for some time now. I'm not sure why you decided to point this out; did you think someone was making a religious argument against SSM?
Those who have mentioned religion in this thread have done so in the context of the idea that it's acceptable for religious institutions and individuals to push for legislation based on their religious reasoning.
That is NOT the same as arguing against SSM specifically using religious strictures.
Do you see the difference?
quote:ancient origins are hardly binding and in a modern context do not preclude same-sex couples anyway
That ancient origins of marriage are not binding is true; that modern concepts of marriage do not preclude same sex couples is not. Obviously, a great many people feel that marriage does preclude same sex couples.
As demonstrated, at least in California.
Given that a coalition of churches has fought the longest and hardest for Proposition 8 to pass, you surely had to know that misdirection wasn't going to work there?
"that modern concepts of marriage do not preclude same sex couples is not"
That wasn't what I said, and I did explain my point fairly thoroughly. The origins of marriage as a way to secure property and procreate do not preclude same-sex couples. The property aspects are obvious (legal rights to inherit, etc, are equally relevant to all married couples/families) and in the modern context the simplistic marry-to-procreate paradigm has fallen away to a myriad of valid options for having and/or raising children, most of which are open to same-sex couples.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Why don't gays get a civil union and then go to their church or home and get joined, married, whatever term they want? It isn't so hard is it? Why do you feel the need to force YOUR way at the expense of what SOCIETY wants. Selfish.
The fundamental underlying principle of rights is that a majority cannot take them from a minority. The democratic decision of the majority prevails, except where rights exist to the contrary. Rights are inalienable. Where a right exists, what Society wants is irrelevant. And it is never selfish to demand equal rights.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When did my assurance in a just and loving God and my belief that I have as much (or more) reason to believe that I am right about God's will regarding SSM as you do become a claim of moral infallibility?
The issue of moral infallibility came when you asserted you could not conceive of being wrong. When pressed, you asserted a certitude in God; but I then pointed out that what is required is not a certitude in God, but in our own interepretation of God's will. You then said you have heard no argument that <edit> caused you to doubt that you were right</edit>, so I pointed out that I don't expect you to find the possibility likely, just that the possibility exists. And then we went around again and again.
If however, your statement that you have "as much (or more) reason to believe that I am right" doesn't translate to "I am certain I am right" then I have no problem.
Is that what you believe? Is it possible that you are wrong in your interpretation of what a just and loving God's will is in this particular instance? Not that you find the likelihood great, or large enough to sway your opinion, but simply that a probability exists.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If God is entirely different than I know God to be then I could very well be wrong about God's will on SSM. In which case I would no longer care what God's will is on SSM because it would be just as likely that God did not exist*.
So what is your reason for believing that you know God's will on this?
*ETA: Or that the right action would be to oppose God's will. Again, assuming that everything I know of God to be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If God is entirely different than I know God to be then I could very well be wrong about God's will on SSM. In which case I would no longer care what God's will is on SSM because it would be just as likely that God did not exist.
To me, this reads that you are willing to admit a lack of certitude in God before you are willing to admit a lack of certitude in your own moral judgment. Would you say that is true?
I am certain of God's love and justice. I am uncertain of my accurate interpretation of it. <edit>Being uncertain does not indicate I would be easily swayed; it simply indicates that I recognize that my powers of discernment are limited in scope, and so no matter how hard I try I will never be able to absolutely know what is right and wrong</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am certain of God's love and justice. I am uncertain of my accurate interpretation of it.
What, beyond your own uncertain interpretations of things you have experienced, makes you certain of God's love and justice?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
In the ammendment put in writing the assurance that churches have the absolute right to choose weather or not to perform SSM without threat of legal actions and if they do choose to do it they have the right to set the terms.
Also in this ammendment give parents the right to opt out their children from SSM related teachings. If you want to be fair give them the option of opt out of non-SSM teaching also.
This would calm the fears of much of the opposition and give you the needed 4% of votes plus some.
If you want more votes then an optional part of the ammendment could make all Civil conducted unions "Civel Unions" and Religious Unions can be what ever the religion wants to call it. As I said this one is optional.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't heard anyone in favor of SSM try to say that we should force religions to perform them against their will. And we don't need to guarantee religions the right to perform religious ceremonies on whomever they choose; they already have that right.
Anyone who's worried about that is pretty poorly informed.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that too many people are prejudiced against gay people, but they want to keep it socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gay people.
You can't get along in society today saying, "I wish they'd get that negro teacher fired. I don't want my kids learning from a colored man." Your friends would stop inviting you to parties.
Fortunately for a lot of people, they can still get away with saying, "If that teacher turns out to be a Lesbian, we're taking our kid out of her class!"
As long as same sex marriage is illegal, there's social basis for being bigoted towards gays. The more equality they get, the less acceptable it is for bigots to keep treating them like lesser people.
Pathetic and disgusting.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I haven't heard anyone in favor of SSM try to say that we should force religions to perform them against their will. And we don't need to guarantee religions the right to perform religious ceremonies on whomever they choose; they already have that right.
Anyone who's worried about that is pretty poorly informed.
Your right... no one has said they would and they already have the right. So there should be no problem in giving that assurance in writing, in order to sooth the fears of the ignorent.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I can clarify why I'm going on about moral certitude.
If you are absolutely certain of the truth of some assertion, then no argument, no evidence will be able to dissuade you from your opinion. If this is the case, I don't understand how we can have a meaningful dialogue. I could give multiple evidences, but they will be meaningless in altering your opinion, because you are already certain that you are right.
Indeed, my certitude about God is why I think engaging in a dialogue with Tom about it would be counterproductive. I can state my certainty and there's nothing Tom can present that will make me question it.
In the case of a debate over the existence of God, that certitude leads to a frustrating situation. In the case of a debate over a matter of public policy, it disallows the possibility of civil dialogue, which is fundamental to successful democracy.
---
To your point Tom: it's thought provoking. Perhaps I exist in a quantum state, mixed between "I am as certain of the existence of God as I am of my own existence" and "I axiomatically accept that God exists." But honestly, I don't think that engaging in an epistimological discussion about my certitude in God will be enlightening to either of us.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused. Why would your certitude about God enter into a debate about public policy in a secular nation at all?
If you can't bring arguments to the table that are not based, in the end, on "God told me so", then your arguments aren't valid in a society where we disagree about the existence and/or nature of God or Gods.
quote:But honestly, I don't think that engaging in an epistimological discussion about my certitude in God will be enlightening to either of us.
Why not? I'd be quite interested in hearing the sensory mechanisms by which you have become certain of God's existence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
If illegal aliens in this country can get married, why can't two men?
This is going to be my new test phrase. When ever I see "Gay" or "Homosexual" or "SSM" I am going to replace it with Illegal Aliens.
Lets try it:
quote:Make a new amendment to make illegal alien marriages legal.
In the amendment put in writing the assurance that churches have the absolute right to choose weather or not to perform Illegal Alien marriages without threat of legal actions and if they do choose to do it they have the right to set the terms.
Also in this amendment give parents the right to opt out their children from illegal alien related teachings. If you want to be fair give them the option of opt out of non-illegal alien teaching also.
In this way our kids may grow up and never realize that Illegal Aliens are people too.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm confused. Why would your certitude about God enter into a debate about public policy in a secular nation at all?
It wouldn't. That was my point. My certitude about God does not lead to a moral certitude about what is right and wrong. Public policy debate is about what is right and wrong. As such, moral certitude (as opposed to certitude about God's existance, which may lead to a frustrating discussion with, say, a convinced atheist) is deadening to civic dialogue. Without civic dialogue, democracy suffers.
This doesn't mean that my religious beliefs don't influence my public policy stances. Indeed, I think it's essential that anyone with any belief that they have any information at all that might be useful to determining the rightness or wrongness of a proposition uses that information in determining how to vote. The problem I have is that if someone assumes the answer to the proposition axiomatically (i.e. with certitude) it defeats precisely that process.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fundamental underlying principle of rights is that a majority cannot take them from a minority. The democratic decision of the majority prevails, except where rights exist to the contrary. Rights are inalienable. Where a right exists, what Society wants is irrelevant. And it is never selfish to demand equal rights.
Nonsense-- our definition of rights is formulated largely from the culture in which we live. What society wants obviously plays a role.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Nonsense-- our definition of rights is formulated largely from the culture in which we live. What society wants obviously plays a role."
Sure. But realize that when you say "This legal right/privelege applies to my group, which happens to be the majority, but not your group, which happens to be the minority," you're basically playing "king of the castle." Eventually, you're going to get thrown off the top of the hill, and then there's more likely to be vengeance. Playing this type of game isn't good for anyone involved over the long run.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... If illegal aliens in this country can get married, why can't two men?
As a practical matter, can they actually? I mean, in a religious ceremony yes. But it seems dangerous to file a marriage with the government indicating that you're married if you're not actually a citizen. Wouldn't they catch you?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I don't think that vengeance is the "reward" for people who indulge in this kind of backwards thinking. I think they will just become irrelevant.
SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just randomly, Scott? Just because (for now) you can? I hadn't thought it was just to be cruel.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, of course not. Can you explain why you brought up this point?
2) Just because (for now) you can?
This conversation has been going on for long enough on this board that you should know that at the very least, opponents of SSM don't use POWER as a reason for their voting habits.
Are you asserting that they are motivated by something other than what has been explained?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I haven't heard anyone in favor of SSM try to say that we should force religions to perform them against their will. And we don't need to guarantee religions the right to perform religious ceremonies on whomever they choose; they already have that right.
Anyone who's worried about that is pretty poorly informed.
Your right... no one has said they would and they already have the right. So there should be no problem in giving that assurance in writing, in order to sooth the fears of the ignorent.
quote:Marriage - certain aspects of capacity 2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials 3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs 3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Marriage not void or voidable 4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
No, of course not. Can you explain why you brought up this point?
2) Just because (for now) you can?
This conversation has been going on for long enough on this board that you should know that at the very least, opponents of SSM don't use POWER as a reason for their voting habits.
Are you asserting that they are motivated by something other than what has been explained?
Hey, "that's what society does" was your answer. You have already indicated that your reason was to have state endorsement of your disapproval for people who choose lifestyles that are different than yours. SenojRetep denied that was his reason. I was asking him what his reason was, as yet he hasn't given any.
Honestly, nothing I have read in this thread or in any other has lead me to any conclusion other than that opponents of SSM either think that everyone should be like them or "our leaders said so". To me, that comes pretty close to it being about power.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Though actually I do live just three hours from the largest gay community in the world outside of SF.) The Church started dealing publically with these issues recently because people started to get more vocal about the number of gay LDS who commit suicide. Bishops have been tackling these issues for a long, long time. Not well, but for a long time.
