Maine becomes 5th state to approve gay marriage

[Faded]

Why can't we just be accepting like Christ was?

You mean love them and teach them that what they are doing is sinful and in no way encourage said behavior? Yep, we can do that.

Why not just the loving part?? Do you honestly think if you tell someone who is gay, 'you are sinning and going to hell' would be helpful?? Do you honestly think they will turn around and say, 'wow, you're right. I'll turn my back on my sexuality, partner, lifestyle, relationship,home etc and join a church that will only like me if I become what they want. where do I sign?'

Really??? Or is gay bashing just to make you feel better so you feel you've done the right thing?

Your question was essentially, "What would Jesus do?" You're forgetting that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same person. Under the lesser law (Law of Moses), the penalty for homosexuality in Israel was death. That law came from Jehovah.

I think you make a good point: Jesus doesn't hate them. But it's an awful stretch to say that Jesus approves of homosexuality. Anyone making that case hasn't ever read the Bible. Jesus would lovingly work to help them overcome their sexual disfunction <-- not a politically correct way to think of homosexuality obviously. But God is the same yesterday, today and forever. There's absolutely no indication that God has changed his mind and decided that gay and lesbian relations are now okay.

Please don't assume that the LDS Church is "THE anti-gay religion." Virtually every world religion is very much against it. In India, you'll spend life in prison for being gay. In Sudan and Saudi Arabia, you will be put to death. The LDS Church is not advocating such extreme measures.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Faded

[Soul_Searcher]

Very good points faded, but I suppose maybe I just expect more from a church like ours, unlike 3rd world countries like Sudan and Africa.

You are right that was what Christ taught. But I still have a hard time accepting why being gay is so wrong. If everyone was gay then the human race would die out, yes. But they're not and never will be. So, I just cant help but think...SO WHAT? Whats the problem with 2 people of the same sex being in a relationship? Its not hurting anyone, and despite what some people might say on here by way of excuse for family breakdown-It WONT break up the family unit, there are many reasons why that could happen. People WONT get influenced by the behaviour as it is something you are born with or not. It WONT impact on your family life. To suggest so is ridiculous!

If family units are breaking down its nothing to do with gay people. Its to do with feckless, irresponsible parents with no common sense or values.

[MarginOfError]

The worry is in fact that if gay marriage is legalized, then there will be a push to force religious leaders to perform same sex marriages, or that church buildings must be made available for these services. That is, that there will be a push to classify refusal to perform or accommodate same-sex marriages as a violation of civil rights.

This is a rather silly concern, actually. There was a case in New Jersey (I think) not long ago where a lesbian couple requested a Methodist owned pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was commonly used for weddings as it had a scenic location on the waterfront. The church denied the couple the use of the pavilion, so the couple sued the church for the privilege of using it. The lesbian couple won, sending ripples through the country that the gays were forcing their will upon the churches.

Now for the untold portion of the story: this church had made an agreement with the municipal government concerning the pavilion. I’m not sure if the city was helping maintain or giving a tax break on the property, but the church was getting some benefit from the city regarding the pavilion. In return, a clause was placed in the agreement that the pavilion had to be available for public use. The courts determined that denying the lesbian couple use of the pavilion because of sexual preference violated the terms of that public use agreement.

Following the court case, the church removed the public use clause from the agreement (I’m not sure if this also resulted in a loss of the municipal benefit..I’ve not seen the text of the new agreement). A short time later, another lesbian couple requested use of the pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The church denied the request, and the couple took it to court. The courts ruled in favor of the church this time, because there was no public use clause in the agreement. Essentially, it was entirely private property and the church could deny use of the property for whatever reason it deemed fit.

However, the issue gets complicated by a few other cases that have taken place recently. There was a case in California where a doctor was sued over refusal to perform an abortion, even though he recommended a physician that could perform the abortion. The doctor lost the law suit. I don’t know if it has gone to appeals yet, but I’m fairly confident that the decision will be reversed, as the patient was not denied access to health care.

There was also a case in Arizona where a gay couple tried to hire a photographer for their wedding. The photographer declined due to her opposition to gay marriage. The couple sued for discrimination and won. Somehow we need to sort out that the courts are not where these issues should be resolved. Such an issue ought to be resolved by word of mouth and boycotts, although I wouldn’t object to a stipulation that the photographer be required to recommend a photographer who would be willing to take the job.

So, people are scared that their values will be trampled and that they will be forced to accommodate a set of values they have moral objections to. It needs to be clearly explained how far this will extend and how it will affect religious peoples. So far, that hasn’t publicly taken place because there are multiple factions on each side sending inconsistent messages. What needs to happen is an open, honest, and public dialogue about how this will look once the dust settles.

Oh, and both sides need to stop over-reacting.

And for the record, the way Soul_Searcher has been treated in this thread as been much less than charitable.

[Dravin]

I seriously doubt that will happen. And if it did it would be rare. And the Bishope would refure. So whats the big deal?? Why would any gay couple want to be baptised into a church that doesnt accept them anyway??

I've heard rumbles about laws to require religions to perform SSM, so it wouldn't be a case of the Bishop being able to refuse as it'd be an invite to lawsuits. That said, I don't know if said laws are even real, I've not bothered to look, that said the concern is there, regardless of how credible it is. Personally I'm inclined to to think it isn't (credible). *shrug*

You asked for a scenario, I gave you one that some are concerned about I wasn't endorsing it as, “Teh Future 2011.”

That they wont leave you alone? Come on, for real???? I can go weeks, months without anything 'gay' coming into my life.

Context is a wonderful thing. If (note the use of a conditional, in this case the word 'if') an LDS Bishop was required by law to perform a SSM that wouldn't be leaving him (and by extension my religion) alone now would it?

Why not just the loving part?

Oh, I see. Be like Christ when doing so fits with what you think people should be doing, but don't be so like him when doing so doesn't fit what you think people should be doing. Gotcha. Anyway, if I love somebody I'm no more going to tell them being in a same sex relationship isn't harmful any more so then I'm going to tell them taking a nap in a running car in a closed garage isn't harmful.

And yes, there is a time and place for these things. I'm not going to randomly lecture some guy at work or on the street about the dangers of carbon monoxide or the spiritual dangers of his boyfriend. However, I'm not going to avoid teaching doctrine. Christ didn't kick down pharisees doors to preach about the dangers of hypocrisy and I'm not going to kick down doors to teach about the Law of Chastity, if it comes up however I'm certainly not going to maintain there is nothing wrong with the behavior.

*Do you honestly think if you tell someone who is gay, 'you are sinning and going to hell' would be helpful?

Fire and brimstone isn't effective regardless of the sin being preached and taught about. The fact that you equate teaching doctrine with fire and brimstone, “You are going to hell you horrible sinner you!” is interesting.

Do you honestly think they will turn around and say, 'wow, you're right. I'll turn my back on my sexuality, partner, lifestyle, relationship,home etc and join a church that will only like me if I become what they want. where do I sign?'

Tobacco, booze, child and spousal abuse, porn, other law of chastities violations and a host of other things could be replaced there and yet people still somehow manage to be called to repentance. So yes, I do believe people can be taught doctrine gain a testimony of it and repent, in fact I've experienced it. I highly doubt that the ~250,000 (at least in 2006) converts every year don't have any kind of repenting to do before being baptized. In fact in my experience law of chastity violations were right up there with Word of Wisdom violations as far as things people needed to repent of before they could get baptized.

Or is gay bashing just to make you feel better so you feel you've done the right thing?

Nope. I'm curious, do you feel anyone who maintains that homosexual relationships are sinful are gay bashing? The statement, “Homosexual relationships are detrimental to your spiritual wellbeing and are a sin” is gay bashing? I'm also curious if a Missionary who teaches somebody the Word of Wisdom is smoker/drinker bashing?

Teaching doctrine != bashing. Yes, some bash and use teaching doctrine as an excuse to do so (heavens knows I've seen it plenty and have fell prey to it on occasion) but they aren't synonymous.

Also, one last thing. What is it that I've supposedly done wrong? Keep in mind I've not voiced an opinion of whether SSM should be legal, I'm conflicted personally. Not sure where exactly it falls on the line between discouraging sinful/immoral/societally detrimental behavior and personal freedoms/agency/government's role. Quite frankly both sides don't help their causes when inane things like, “You disagree with my position, that makes you: hateful/bigoted/immoral/unchristian/homophobic/stupid/evil!” are spouted*.

*Not accusing anyone in particular, just a comment on how these kind of conversations tend to get... actually most online conversations on a host of topics.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

Very good points faded, but I suppose maybe I just expect more from a church like ours, unlike 3rd world countries like Sudan and Africa.

You are right that was what Christ taught. But I still have a hard time accepting why being gay is so wrong. If everyone was gay then the human race would die out, yes. But they're not and never will be. So, I just cant help but think...SO WHAT? Whats the problem with 2 people of the same sex being in a relationship? Its not hurting anyone, and despite what some people might say on here by way of excuse for family breakdown-It WONT break up the family unit, there are many reasons why that could happen. People WONT get influenced by the behaviour as it is something you are born with or not. It WONT impact on your family life. To suggest so is ridiculous!

If family units are breaking down its nothing to do with gay people. Its to do with feckless, irresponsible parents with no common sense or values.

The problem with two people of the same sex being in a relationship is that, according to LDS theology, the law of chastity stipulates that men and women may only have sexual relations with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully married; and in LDS theology, marriage is only sanctioned between a man and a woman. Thus, homosexual relationships constitute a sin.

However, I agree with you that same sex relationships will not be the ultimate downfall of the family. I firmly believe that the percentage of the population that exhibits homosexual tendencies will remain at about 3-5%, and I don't think same-sex marriage will be anywhere near the tragedy the doomsayers say it will be.

I also agree that two people living a same-sex relationship will have very little effect on us as individuals. It will have an effect on our ability to teach and persuade them to the Gospel, but that effect is probably marginal as we likely wouldn't have been very persuasive to begin with.

[MarginOfError]

Nope. I'm curious, do you feel anyone who maintains that homosexual relationships are sinful are gay bashing? The statement, “Homosexual relationships are detrimental to your spiritual wellbeing and are a sin” is gay bashing? I'm also curious if a Missionary who teaches somebody the Word of Wisdom is smoker/drinker bashing?

Keep in mind, it's the 'sexual' part in homosexual that gets you into trouble. It isn't about homosexuality, it's about chastity.

Teaching doctrine != bashing.

For those who don't speak the language of computing logic, '!=' means 'does not equal'

Yes, some bash and use teaching doctrine as an excuse to do so (heavens knows I've seen it plenty and have fell prey to it on occasion) but they aren't synonymous.

to be fair, a lot of people here fail to comprehend the difference between homosexual relations and same-sex attraction. And they often extend their condemnation of the former onto the latter. Furthermore, many here speak against homosexual relations not with compassion, but with vehemence. You can say doctrinally correct words until you're blue in the face, but if the attitude reflected is disgust, I would not dare to call it doctrine.

[Dravin]

For those who don't speak the language of computing logic, '!=' means 'does not equal'

You know, I've been using that for so long I've stopped even contemplating that not everyone understands it.

Keep in mind, it's the 'sexual' part in homosexual that gets you into trouble. It isn't about homosexuality, it's about chastity.

Certainly. I made a comment to that effect on one of the threads covering the subject (there sure do seem to be a lot of them ). So I agree whole heartedly. An inclination to engage in sexual relations with somebody of the same sex is not more sinful then my own inclination to engage in sexual relations with somebody of the opposite sex premaritally/extramaritally. Its what I was trying to convey when I used the term "homosexual relationship" instead of just, “being homosexual.”

Edited May 8, 2009 by Dravin

[Moksha]

Hey, what is with New Mexico on Faded's map? Are they choosing to be less valient by fence sitting in this conflict?

[Faded]

Very good points faded, but I suppose maybe I just expect more from a church like ours, unlike 3rd world countries like Sudan and Africa.

What I was illustrating by citing India and Saudi Arabia was two examples of nations that are not even Christian and are predominantly something else. India is predominantly Hindu. Saudi Arabia is predominantly Muslim. Their stance against homosexuality is a lot more aggressive. Do you have a right to "expect more from a Church like ours"? Yes. And you're getting more. We do not advocate the same extremes as those other countries.

You are right that was what Christ taught. But I still have a hard time accepting why being gay is so wrong. If everyone was gay then the human race would die out, yes. But they're not and never will be. So, I just cant help but think...SO WHAT? Whats the problem with 2 people of the same sex being in a relationship? Its not hurting anyone, and despite what some people might say on here by way of excuse for family breakdown-It WONT break up the family unit, there are many reasons why that could happen. People WONT get influenced by the behaviour as it is something you are born with or not. It WONT impact on your family life. To suggest so is ridiculous!

If family units are breaking down its nothing to do with gay people. Its to do with feckless, irresponsible parents with no common sense or values.

The family is under attack from all sides. Gay Rights is just one aspect of that. Gay Rights groups have very loudly, proudly and frequently sounded off about how normal and natural homosexuality is. Their efforts have succeeded in convincing a lot of people that it is completely normal and natural.

This leads directly to the BIG QUESTION: "Am I gay?" So you look inside and try to determine if you are gay. There's a problem though. The whole scenario is assuming that everyone's playing fair. Satan ain't gonna play fair on this one. To the person that asks themselves, "Am I gay?" he or she is very often going to get the answer (from within themselves, or so they think), "Yes! Absolutely you're gay! You are so VERY gay!" So yes, the publicity and social normalization of homosexuality does threaten families. Husbands leave wives because they decide that they're gay. Wives leave husbands because they decide that they're lesbians. Children will be likewise influenced on the matter. It is having a significant impact. Acceptance of Gay Marriage is a step towards further normalization of homosexuality.

Nobody has proven that anybody is born gay. They like to say as much, but it simply has not been proven. The trouble is, that would infer that it's in the genetics. The Genome has been successfully mapped at long last. Now they're working on trying to figure out what all the data means. Nobody can look into your DNA and find "the Gay gene" because no such thing has ever been found. There is extremely biased research that has been conducted now and again. Nothing conclusive has come up from any fair study though. I remember one of the most significant studies saw trying to determine if it was a genetic trait found that the group that had what they thought was the "born gay" component came out 8% gay, vs 6% for the test group. That a 2% difference. A Gay Rights activist will call that "Absolutely Proof!" Any statistician will call that 2% margin "meaningless and within normal margin of error." The point is, nobody has actually proven anything yet. Gay Rights groups have done their utmost to do their own brainwashing of the public psyche, just as they accuse Christian groups of doing.

Please stop taking absolutely everything people say as, "Gay bashing." We're not. We believe in God and we believe that God has spoken on the matter. That is all.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Faded

[Maxel]

Soul_Searcher:

I'd like to hear why any Mormon should believe your line of thinking as opposed to the prophets of God, especially the current one. I noticed you avoided responding to my quote from Monson.

Please enlighten me, and everyone else. This is a tired, old argument on this board- although if you have any convincing arguments I'd love to hear them. I'm all ears.

[Maxel]

to be fair, a lot of people here fail to comprehend the difference between homosexual relations and same-sex attraction. And they often extend their condemnation of the former onto the latter.

Justice linked an article earlier; an interview with Elder Oaks and Wickman. A very, very good read for getting a real grasp on the Church's opinion. I mention this because I don't disagree with MoE's quoted statement. Edited May 11, 2009 by Maxel
Fixed an error; thanks to JAG for the correction

[Just_A_Guy]

Wickman. Wickham was the villain in Pride and Prejudice (and also the 19th century English adventurer who first smuggled the rubber tree out of Brazil).

[Guest]

How can tolerating gay marriage/rights send you to hell? All it is is being acepting of others lifestyles. I cannot think of a situation where an LDS person would have to physically carry out an act relating to homosexuality that would compromise their beliefs, unless anyone else can?

Why is it so hard to leave them alone to live their lives the way they choose and we live ours????

Soul, go back to the post that I responded to. The post where you said it "angers and frustrates" you that somebody here would find relief that at least businesses are not legally strapped to serve in gay marriage ceremonies or what-have-you. That is action - not tolerance - and that was what I was responding to.

And my sister is a nurse. The hospital knows that she will not assist in abortions unless the life of the mother is on the balance. So, I know for a fact that you cannot be forced to be involved against your will.

And just so you know, my husband's best friend of 12 years who is also my good friend since college is a gay man, living with another man in Florida where gay unions of any kind is banned. So, I know everything there is to know about tolerance. And my gay friend does not brandish their gay-ness infront of my children out of HIS TOLERANCE for our religious convictions. And he does not tell my children how it is okay and all because he knows we teach our children differently. At the same time, we do not "preach" to him about his lifestyle, and we know to include his boyfriend on our invites as his partner. He continues to hold the rank as my husband's best friend and a close family friend and I don't see that changing in the future.

It goes both ways, Soul. I just hope you are as tolerant of ours as we are of yours.

[Kawazu]

Soul_Searcher:

I'd like to hear why any Mormon should believe your line of thinking as opposed to the prophets of God, especially the current one. I noticed you avoided responding to my quote from Monson.

Please enlighten me, and everyone else. This is a tired, old argument on this board- although if you have any convincing arguments I'd love to hear them. I'm all ears.

Hi,

Some of the Prophets had advocated that blacks were unworthy in the preexistence and thus ineligible to attain the Priesthood. 100 years later, these sentiments are revealed to be doctrinally incorrect. Similarly, church members who promote acceptance of homosexual marriage may feel that the Church's current position on same-sex couples will be revealed as doctrinally incorrect, a century from now.

Thank you for reading. Be well.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

[Maxel]

Hi,

Some of the Prophets had advocated that blacks were unworthy in the preexistence and thus ineligible to attain the Priesthood. 100 years later, these sentiments are revealed to be doctrinally incorrect. Similarly, church members who promote acceptance of homosexual marriage may feel that the Church's current position on same-sex couples will be revealed as doctrinally incorrect, a century from now.

Yes, well, such members would do well to heed the spirit of God as opposed to the spirit of man. We are to follow the modern prophets, whether they be right or wrong. The idea that we are justified in ignoring a prophet's advice because they may or may not be wrong is dangerous.

In this context, your example- about blacks being unworthy to attain the priesthood because of an unworthy preexistence- ignores the fact that blacks weren't allowed to hold the priesthood. One doesn't have to like or accept the reasoning- one does have to follow the direct advice unless one wants to fall prey to Satan's deceptions.

Furthermore, I would posit that Monson's advice about sin being masked as tolerance is, in its nature, very different than the cited example. Monson's words offer a general truth about life- that the devil presents the acceptance of sin (a negative act) as a mere acceptance of diversity (a positive act)- and that the cited example offers a reason for a doctrinal practice. At the very least, it's the difference between the general and the specific.

Also; where was the idea about blacks being unworthy in the preexistence prophetically repudiated, either officially or unofficially (I'm not implying that it hasn't been; I don't know either way)? I've been looking for that for a while; your mention of the issue reminded me that I haven't actually found it yet. I've read many statements to the effect of "forget what's been said in the past"- does that count?

[Faded]

Hi,

Some of the Prophets had advocated that blacks were unworthy in the preexistence and thus ineligible to attain the Priesthood. 100 years later, these sentiments are revealed to be doctrinally incorrect. Similarly, church members who promote acceptance of homosexual marriage may feel that the Church's current position on same-sex couples will be revealed as doctrinally incorrect, a century from now.

Thank you for reading. Be well.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

As I recall, the theory of blacks having done something or not done something in the pre-Earth Life was just that. Theory. Never taught as official doctrine. The trouble they had then was the trouble we still have today - the need for an explanation why blacks could not hold the priesthood. So a lot of theorizing came about on the matter. When revelation came to end the prohibition, it was welcomed by all Latter Day Saints worthy of being called such. Now they didn't have to try to understand something that God had never fully explained. Something that saw a lot of theories in attempt to explain it.

Homosexuality is a lot different of course. The Bible is loaded with material that makes God's position quite clear on the matter. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Law of Moses and passages through the Old and New Testaments resoundingly preach against homosexuality directly. In that aspect, it is nothing similar to blacks and the Priesthood. In the case of homosexuality, a Judeo-Christian religion has to actively contradict a lot of scripture and more or less postulate that, "God just didn't know what he was talking about." That is why I would say it's a completely different scenario, and highly unlikely to follow the same course. The question for blacks with regard to the Priesthood wasn't really ever "If" it was "When?" That has never been the case with homosexuality.

Ultimately, I wouldn't get my hopes up on the matter, as I don't see the position changing ever because it would effectively mean that God doesn't know what he's talking about and changed drastically.

[Churchmouse]

cofchristcousin, I cant believe you would suggest this. I know ur not LDS but if someone refused to serve you or whatever because of your religion, imagine how you would feel. Yet you are endorsing this behaviour against gay people. That angers and frustrates me as to peoples backward attitudes, but it also saddens me that alledged followers of Christ are so quick to judge and exclude.

I think, and hope gay marriage will be legaliized in every state one day, and accross the world. Its been legal here for years. We are more are more accepting of diversity in the U.K.

Good for the UK. Maybe we could send them all to you.

[Churchmouse]

Did you ever notice that in states where the people are allowed to vote on the issue, it nearly always fails. Even in California. It's the state legislatures that are supporting this. Does that group have that much clout?

I agree it's just a matter of time until it will be legal everywhere, but that doesn't make it right.

[DigitalShadow]

Furthermore, many here speak against homosexual relations not with compassion, but with vehemence.

Good for the UK. Maybe we could send them all to you.

I do believe you are correct, MOE.

[Churchmouse]

I do believe you are correct, MOE.

Not so fast DS.. If same sex couples can legally wed in the UK, wouldn't they be happier where they can live the way they wish. What's not compassionate about that?

Besides, I 'm really not concerned about compassion. I'm concerned about what is right and wrong. Church leaders tell us same sex marriage is against the laws of God. If you don't except that you are going against teachings of the Church. You don't get to decide which cammandments you will follow and which you will ignore. Have you ever had a temple interview?

God had compassion on those that TURNED AWAY from their sin. Not for those that continued in them.

[Hemidakota]

Sigh

Is Maine a state? Seriously, eventually the nation will succumb to this problem.

[MarginOfError]

Not so fast DS.. If same sex couples can legally wed in the UK, wouldn't they be happier where they can live the way they wish. What's not compassionate about that?

Besides, I 'm really not concerned about compassion. I'm concerned about what is right and wrong. Church leaders tell us same sex marriage is against the laws of God. If you don't except that you are going against teachings of the Church. You don't get to decide which cammandments you will follow and which you will ignore. Have you ever had a temple interview?

God had compassion on those that TURNED AWAY from their sin. Not for those that continued in them.

If memory serves me correctly, Shadow isn’t LDS, so I would imagine he has never had a temple recommend interview. But I could be wrong about that.

Besides, the same argument applies to people who are so opposed to same sex marriage. Perhaps all of you should leave this country and move to one where you’d be happier. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia all forbid same sex marriage. If you think people with a liberal mind should move to a more liberal country, it only makes sense that we should think that people with a conservative mind should move to a more conservative country.

Next, if you’re going to accept your own Church’s scriptures, then you might be interested in the Lord’s model for leadership.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (D&C 121)

What has been done here to show persuasion, long suffering, and kindness for those who live a homosexual lifestyle. When on this board have you seen anyone, let alone yourself, show an increase of love for homosexuals after deriding what they believe? How exactly is “all the gays should move to UK” letting your bowels be full of charity towards all men? You may claim that the words you chose denote charity “cause they can get married and be happy in another country,” but the context and tone screams “get out of my face and let me have things my way.”

You have every right to campaign against same sex marriage in the country in which you live, but you don’t get to complain that others may campaign for it. You are free to have and express your opinion and your beliefs, but you don’t get to trivialize others’ opinions and beliefs in defense of your own. You may present yourself as godly and holy, but you do not get to demonize others based on one aspect of their lives; for hypocrisy and error run deep in human nature, and they run deep in all humans.

[DigitalShadow]

Not so fast DS.. If same sex couples can legally wed in the UK, wouldn't they be happier where they can live the way they wish. What's not compassionate about that?

You didn't say "Maybe they could move to the UK and be happy", you said "Maybe we could send them all to you" which implies against their will just so you don't have to put up with them here.

Besides, I 'm really not concerned about compassion.

It shows.

I'm concerned about what is right and wrong. Church leaders tell us same sex marriage is against the laws of God.

That's all well and good that your church leaders told you it is wrong, and you are completely free to not personally engage in a same sex marriage since you find it wrong, but last I checked, the majority of Maine is not LDS and really couldn't care less what your church leaders have to say about it.

If you don't except that you are going against teachings of the Church. You don't get to decide which cammandments you will follow and which you will ignore.

Have you ever had a temple interview?

As you can probably tell by now, I am not LDS and do not plan to have a temple interview. I respect your right to believe whatever you want is right or wrong for you based on what your church leaders say, but you are trying to extend your version of morality to people who don't share your beliefs and prevent them from doing things that don't even affect you just because you find it wrong.

God had compassion on those that TURNED AWAY from their sin. Not for those that continued in them.

They don't find it sinful and they are not harming anyone. If you really want to deny them any compassion because they are continuing with a "sin" that they don't even think is wrong then go ahead, but it hardly sounds Christ-like to me.

[Dravin]

You have every right to campaign against same sex marriage in the country in which you live, but you don’t get to complain that others may campaign for it.

Actually she does. One can of course debate whether she should and what one might infer from such complaining but I can't think anything more American (particularly in politics) than complaining about the other side and them not agreeing with you. :)

[Hemidakota]