GaySaint

There is a copy of the full ruling here: Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

Matthew: The church has an entire Public Relations department which employes multiple lobbyists to ensure the church's point of view is defended legally. When the church initially filed its "in kind" contributions (totalling somewhere around 2000 dollars) it claimed the money was for hotel accomidations and food for their prop 8 lobbyist (which is the one I'm talking about - the one directly involved in prop 8. PM me if you want his name, as I promised him I wouldn't announce it publicly) who was sent to California multiple times. I don't see anything wrong with the church having a public relations office, or ensuring that the desires of the religious community are represented before legislative bodies.

... I thought it was pretty proven that 60-75% of the funds donated to Yes on 8 came from members of the church. Isn't the proof in the film? If not I might have to find those stats... Although, for the record, I don't really have much of a problem with all the money being donated from members of the church. I think the church, itself, could have handled the whole situation more tactfully (and the church lobbyist who I talk to quite often agrees with me), but I think the gay community could have handled the backlash more tactfully as well.

Thank you JAG. I think we are on the same page. I knew that the California court ruling dealt with California only, and not any federal entity. That was the point I was trying to get across – that just because marriage is a right in California doesn’t necessarily mean it is a federal right. I also understand that while the opinion of the court hasn’t changed (that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in California), the constitution has simply changed to allow the state to discriminate, or remove that fundamental right (but maybe we are saying the same thing with different words). And you are right about DOMA as well, that the decision threw out the equal protection section of the lawsuit (or at least it was never considered because the decision was and could have been made without it). Not to derail the thread, and I won’t continue on this tangent again, but I am curious about your opinion of Perez v. Lippold (which was quoted a lot in the California ruling I posted). “The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, ‘We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man’ (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.)… “…Since the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice, a statute that prohibits an individual from marrying a member of a race other than his own restricts the scope of his choice and thereby restricts his right to marry. It must therefore be determined whether the state can restrict that right on the basis of race alone without violating the equal protection of the laws clause of the United States Constitution." http://faculty.law.miami.edu/zfenton/documents/Perez.pdf Doesn’t this ruling define marriage as a civil right (marriage itself, not just the benefits) federally? And if so, how can someone argue that gays AREN’T being discriminated against in this regard (although I will be the first to admit that such discrimination is legal)? It seems to me the position of “Yes, gays are discriminated against in this regard because marriage is a fundamental right, but such discrimination is legal and constitutional” would be a more honest position to take. Instead, it seems people want to claim marriage can be denied to anyone society says because marriage isn’t a right – but that position seems dishonest to me. What are your views based on your life, as well as legal, experience?

I think it is important to have the facts before we discuss legal, secular, issues. Obviously in regards to the LDS viewpoint, Bytor is right. But if we are discussing whether marriage for same-sex couples is or was a RIGHT in CALIFORNIA, then we need to know what the court rulings all said. This link is to the original May 2008 ruling of the California Supreme Court, which defines marriage as a right for same sex couples in the state of California: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s147999.pdf So in regards to prop 8, yes, it did strip away the right to marriage [in California] as defined by the ruling. However, FEDERAL marriage rights are only guaranteed to suspect classes, of which sexual orientation is not at this point (although the federal DOMA case has brought this under higher scrutiny). Perhaps Just-A-Guy could clarify further, particularly if I'm wrong...

OT: Mark this day in history - Crazypotato and I actually agree on something!

If you have to ask, you have to go. I don't think it's worth the aggrevation of sitting in the temple having this hanging over your head wondering if your breach of the law of chastity is enough to make you unworthy to be there, only to then sit in church and wonder if your breach of the law of chastity is enough to make you unworthy to take the sacrament, only to then be sitting at home with your wife and kids, looking at her and wondering if your breach of the law of chastity is enough to make you unworthy of her love. Just man up and go talk to the bishop. It really isn't that scary, and then you won't have to worry about it anymore. If it isn't a big deal then it isn't a big deal, and the bishop isn't going to "overpunish" you (personally I don't think they punish you at all, YOU do that, not the church leadership). If it helps you to think that I very well may be a member of your ward, go ahead. And trust me, anything I tell my bishop (which is everything), is much much juicier than anything you have to tell him . Sorry, this "do I go see the bishop" thing always irks me a bit. The steps to take part of the atonement are things you have a testimony of. This is the church you believe in! Why would you be afraid of it? *End soap box*

If I can just quote Pam with slight modification, it explains my primary reason for being here, besides meeting awesome people, learning, discussing, sharing life and spiritual experiences, etc... I admit I find myself 'trolling' the homosexuality forums more often than I probably should, but I tend to chime in on occasion in other places as well. The problem I've found, though, is that my opinion doesn't seem to matter much when talking about gospel things, because sometimes people don't particularly LIKE me talking about gospel things - I think it's funny when I say something inline with church teachings on varying church subjects, only to have someone try to start an argument with me (maybe I have a credibility problem since I'm an ex-member?). Maybe I should create a new account for those discussions . I could probably play the part of an 80 year old true-to-the-faith LDS woman pretty well - tee hee hee.

I've always found this tactic to be a little... odd. If a movie is bad enough that you can't watch it unedited, aren't you sort of forcing some other person to watch it in all its unedited glory (the editor), so that you can then watch the clean version? And if the editor works at a place like this, he or she probably has the same morals that you do. It doesn't seem right to force someone else (willing or not) to expose themselves to the same things you don't want to be exposed to just so you can watch the other 100 minutes of a movie. Either don't watch the movie, or use fast-forward :) Just my heathenistic two cents, lol.

Ah, but there is the rub. Whether or not denying marriage to same sex couples infringes on their civil rights is at the very heart of the argument, I believe. I have no idea how someone can claim that it DOESN'T, while there are many who have no idea how I can claim that it DOES, haha. But I see the flip side too. I don't know how gay marriage could possibly infringe on religious freedom (or at least have yet to hear a plausible explaination for such), while I'm sure you feel that it somehow would. And we go in circles and circles and circles :).

I would be perfectly happy if I could move to a state where gay marriage were legal, and get all the marital benefits of the state (by virtue of the state), AND have the federal goverment recognize me and my partner as married (thus giving us the federal ability to protect our family as well). I agree that this could easily take the wind out of the sails of the gay movement, but in my book, this is where that ship was hoping to dock anyway. I'm not entirely convinced that a states majority should be the only thing required to strip away state's rights from anyone, but if I could then move to another state where I could have those rights recognized without any federal prohibitions, I'd be very happy with such a conclusion.

What? It costs 15 bucks? Sheesh...

Suzie: I had a young men’s leader once who used to chide me every single week because my family didn’t drink caffeinated beverages. At one time it got so bad that I told my mom I wanted to change wards. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was… I wasn’t pushing MY choices on anyone else, or expressing the sentiment that I felt cola drinks were against the word of wisdom (at that time I was still figuring out why I thought about it myself, and who was I to lecture anyone on the finer points of the WoW), but this man felt the need to make a big deal of it week after week after week. For some reason, it is a big deal to a lot of people. I look at it this way: There is counsel, and there is commandment. Breaking counsel usually leads to a breaking of a commandment. Even if a GA, or 70, or whatever says drinking cola is bad this would be counsel, probably because it can be addictive, which could then put someone in violation of the commandment… but I don’t know a single person who has had their temple recommend taken away for drinking a Mountain Dew. When I was on my mission I was told the coke people would offer us in bottles was much healthier than the water =)

Whoo Hoo!

Elgama: I’m so sorry to hear you so down today . I can tell you my favorite scripture story to read when I’m having a hard day, but it is a little strange… Nehemiah chapters 2-4, and chapter 6 to verse 15. This is Nehemiah’s version of “Lehi’s Dream” in my opinion… except the iron rod in this story is symbolized by the walls of Jerusalem. The bad guy in the story, Sanballat, tries to discourage Nehemiah from building the walls of the city after they had been destroyed. Some of my favorite parts is when Nehemiah talks about how each person has their own portion of the wall to work on – just like we each have our own piece of work to do here in this life. There is another part where he talks about how the families and servants worked with one hand while holding their sword and shields in another. I find this imagery exceptionally touching, and very true-to-life. When Sanballat finally comes to confront Nehemiah, he is saved by staying atop the wall – the most important work of his life, just like Lehi’s family was saved in his dream by clinging to the iron rod. Elgama, you too have your own work to do, an assignment that is special and unique just for you. Laying such brick is very difficult, especially when you are being bombarded by your enemies. It is very tiring to lay your life’s bricks with one hand while fighting off the enemy with your spiritual sword and shield with the other. Perhaps reading of Nehemiah’s success doing the same thing will help strengthen you. Hopefully you will find something in his story, as I have and do every time I read it, that will inspire you to find a solution – no matter how slow and laborious – to your funk today.

I can confirm that your lds.org account gets deactivated upon excommunication. I found this really frustrating when I wanted my stake president's phone number and had to ask someone else to look it up :).

Isn't giving roundtable the code sort of... cheating?

Did you learn nothing from South Park?

Handle it one step at a time. First, create the code to get a [pseudo] random number between 1 and 100. Print out the result. Then put that entire chunk of code into a while loop that repeats the code 1000 times. Here is a while loop example: Python - while Loop Statements

I’ve never understood the “nature vs. nurture” argument, or why it matters. Will knowledge that homosexuality is completely genetic or not influence whether or not the behavior is sinful? If it is proven that it is genetic, how does that frustrate the plan of Heavenly Father any more than a choice would? Is someone less accountable if homosexuality is genetic? Does this somehow change how we should treat people? Does someone who makes a choice because of their experiences make them any more or less in need of the atonement than someone who has a condition that is genetically predisposed? Is the atonement sufficient for one while not for the other? I think we all know the answers to these questions – and I would bet we would all answer them the same.

I strongly believe that church policy and opinion regarding homosexuality has changed over the years. First, homosexuality was taught as being an entirely preventable and changeable condition (Spencer W Kimball). The church during this time engaged in reparative therapy at BYU that included electroshock and chemical therapy, and included pornography as part of the treatment. It didn’t take long for the church to amend its position, and a new tolerant attitude began to be seen. Now, current policy is that it is science’s duty to come up with and understand the factors that cause homosexuality (Oaks/Wickman). It has also been stated that the attraction itself is not sinful (Hinckley) (and if it isn’t sinful and wrong to have the attractions, it would seem to me they are suggesting they, in and of themselves, don’t come from Satan). The current church policy is to love homosexuals (Hinckley), and welcome all those willing to be celibate into full fellowship, and to reach out in love and understanding to all. It may have been Kimball’s opinion that homosexuality was 100% preventable and changeable, but that doesn’t make his opinion doctrine. It may be the opinion of the church now that same-sex attractions are not sinful but the behavior is, but that doesn’t make that opinion doctrine. The doctrine is the law of chastity – and there is nothing in the law of chastity or any interpretation thereof provided by a current prophet of God that condemns homosexuals for the attraction alone.

Daniel: If same sex attractions in and of themselves condemn the person experiencing them, then there is literally no hope for gay people. I think it is this mentality that leads a lot of gay people into simply "giving in" - after all, why try if you are condemned no matter what you do for something you have absolutely no control over. And why stop at being gay? Why not do whatever you feel pressure to do - drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, etc? I think we at least should encourage gay men and women to be the best they can be - encourage celibacy for those who are members of a church that would teach so, and encourage monogamy for the rest as an ideal. I realize you may believe that same-sex attractions are 100% chosen, but I don't think there is a church on the planet that still teaches this. Every Christian I have ever spoken to acknowledges that the attractions are not the fault of the person, although most still require celibacy or strict obedience to chastity. And if "effeminate" is a condemning attribute, I know many many straight men who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and many masculine gay men who will.

Carli: You asked if it was harder for gay people to be chaste. Honestly, I think this forum is a perfect example that it is. Whether doctrinal or cultural, gay people are held to a higher level of chastity – meaning we cannot do what an unmarried heterosexual couple can. We are asked to literally refrain from falling in love, or acting out our attractions in any way. Would it be difficult for you in this same situation, if the church asked you to not act on any heterosexual desire you have, including dating, forming intimate (but non-sexual) relationships? You would be asked to control your desires for the opposite sex to the point where you must limit your interaction with them so explicitly so that you are able to maintain control of your feelings - even refraining from infatuation. Even with unmarried heterosexuals in the church, they are not asked to do such things. That said, if a heterosexual couple were unable to marry and feelings started to develop, it would also be a bad idea for them to form a non-sexual romantic relationship, because those feelings and actions lead to a deeper desire for intimacy – and without the outlet of marriage, it would be wise for this couple to limit their interactions. I would say that if a gay person wants to remain faithful to the church, they should be prepared to do the same. Does that help clarify my position and point of view?

Margin: I wouldn't be able to successfully argue that it violates the spirit of the law either (in fact, that phrase did run through my head but I purposely thought about it and chose not to use it) - unless the possibility of breaking of the letter of the law in the future is the definition of breaking the spirit of the law... I'd prefer to say that for an LDS person trying to remain faithful to the church "no good will come of it." Sort of like drinking coke HEHEHEHE.

Hemi - In the last paragraph of your post above, Spencer W Kimball refers to "wholesome courting." Would the wholesome activities that occur during wholesome courting still be wholesome if they took place between two homosexuals (which, no doubt, would include "wholesome kissing" and "wholesome hand-holding")? I think that is the question. I don't think that LostSheep is arguing that necking or petting is right, regardless of sexual orientation. He wants to know if the exact same behavior exhibited by LDS heterosexual dating couples is wrong for LDS homosexual couples. My ideology suggest that it is not technically wrong but that the brethren would still counsel against such behavior because it cannot lead to an outlet worthy of church endorsement (unlike a heterosexual marriage where the romantic bond and feelings can be expressed without sin).