Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances

[Moksha]

I hope we could all be supportive if the Church spoke in favor of the rights of Icelanders at some future date.

[Rico]

And we can also take heed of the commandment to love our neighbor. No matter how disgusting their lifestyle may be to us, they are still our brothers and sisters. That does not mean we have to roll over and give in to their demands on our religion, but they still are deserving of our respect and basic human dignities.

As we should for every other unrepentant sinner.

Would you advocate the same treatments for unrepentant rapists, child molesters, thieves, con men, drug dealers, etc?

[john doe]

I'm guessing you don't understand the difference between sinners and criminals. Equating a gay person with a rapist or child molester is really sick.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

I rarely resort to a Reductio ad Hitlerum, but this calls for it....another recent regime that said Homosexuals as undeserving of basic human rights (Life, liberty, ability to work without fear of being fired for religious/sexual/political preference) also said other groups such as Jews, Roma, and Slavs were undeserving of the same.

Do I condone the lifestyle? Far from it. But do I equate those who pursue it with people undeserving of the above mention rights (such as rapists, child molesters etc)? No.

[Rico]

I'm guessing you don't understand the difference between sinners and criminals.

Why don't you indulge me with the difference.

My understanding is that sinners violate God's Laws, criminals violate man's laws. Which is worse? To violate man's laws or violate God's laws?

Maybe we should treat all those who violate the higher law the same...maybe we should show love and compassion to all sinners.

But then again, if it makes you feel better to treat some sinners better than other sinners, that's something that you have to live with.

[pam]

Isn't a criminal violating both laws in many cases? Aren't criminals also violating the rights of others by the crimes they commit? So which is worse?

Edited November 27, 2009 by pam

[john doe]

Why don't you indulge me with the difference.

My understanding is that sinners violate God's Laws, criminals violate man's laws. Which is worse? To violate man's laws or violate God's laws?

Maybe we should treat all those who violate the higher law the same...maybe we should show love and compassion to all sinners.

But then again, if it makes you feel better to treat some sinners better than other sinners, that's something that you have to live with.

Put in simple terms, you can sin without committing a crime. And yes, when it comes down to it, there are some sins less serious than others. For instance, if you lie to somebody as to whether or not you had breakfast today, would that be just as bad as if you were to shoot your neighbor for not averting his eyes when he walked past your house? I think not.

[galenbeesley]

I agree with the stance of the church on this matter. I don't agree with anything that interferes with the rights of other people, even if what they do I think is morally wrong. I believe that even gays and lesbians are children of God and deserve to be treated as children of God.

Wow I didn't expect the kind of replies I received on this statement. I will qualify my remarks though in the matters of spiritual law and criminal law, I do believe that justice needs to be served. I don't however agree with being the judge on either matter unless we are put in that position. In the matter of spiritual law I refer to Jesus who said that He will forgive whom He will forgive but it is required of all men to forgive. That doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge that they have broken a law but that we are leave the matter of judgment up to Him. I know that homosexuality is a grievous sin, but I'm not the one to judge on that matter. That person could be someone who struggling with trying to overcome those feelings, we just don't know.

[sdorociak]

I would say that this could conceivably be classified as a conundrum. Yes, we are commanded to "love one another" and "not judge least we..." However, several years ago one of the General Authorities made an interesting comment that is worthy of extremely deep thought and consideration in today's world. He said and I paraphrase, we have allowed little wrongs to become rights while letting rights become wrong.

Yes, everyone should be allowed to work and support oneself. And, everyone should also be allowed to have a place to live. There is no question about this regarding the rights of every individual. But, at what point do we mark the point of infringement into the lives of those who choose not to live by those standards. At what point do we teach our children that this is not an acceptable lifestyle for us when it is becoming the norm in magazines, books, newspapers, public education, and even churches. Aren't these the little wrongs now being taught in a very subliminal manner in many cases that are slowly becoming "rights"?

[Maxel]

sdorociak, you bring up a good point. I think the best approach, from a legal standpoint, is to secure the basic rights enumerated by the Constitution for each individual, to study and understand those rights.

For instance, I could see a landlord legitimately kicking a gay man out for obscene public displays of any kind. However, I would hope that the landlord would kick a straight man out for the same thing. I think the difficulty arises when we're willing to let immoral actions go unnoticed if committed by people we associate or agree with, and punish the same actions for being committed by people we don't associate with.

This brings up another interesting question, somewhat related to the Temple Square kissing incident. If a gay couple living in an apartment consistently show minor public displays of affection- kissing, hand holding, cuddling in public, etc.- while inside the halls and lobby of the apartment building (which is private property), would that be a legitimate cause for the landlord to evict the gay tenants, even if straight couples are allowed to do those things?

[ninelegyak]

Aren't these the little wrongs now being taught in a very subliminal manner in many cases that are slowly becoming "rights"?

The ordinance is not just to protect those who "act on their attractions," but also those who are perceived as gay/lesbian/bisexual/same-sex attracted/transgendered/queer/whatever. A lot of surveillance goes on in society to try to cut off sin at the pass, and this surveillance often manifests as discrimination and judgment. I see the conundrum that you have lain out about gayness slowly becoming "right," but I think the Church is comfortable with the "thought/action" distinction for the foreseeable future. I believe Church leaders have come to recognize that there is indeed a kind of discrimination going on in the form of judgment. It was never about what people are actually doing, what sins people are actually committing... since we're all sinning, right?

If you believe in the thought/action distinction, then really all the gay norms do (such as the media, the Temple Square incident, etc) is put on display the gay contingency. I don't quite see how this display slowly makes gay activity "right." Perhaps you can elaborate?

[Guest]

If I only want temple-recommend-holding LDS people in my private business of apartment housing... can I not do it?

The Catholic Church down the road has a school and if you're not Catholic, you pay a lot more than if you are Catholic... is this not the same?

[sdorociak]

I will do my best to explain my comment. We, as adults, have been taught from birth and those ideas have slowly formed our beliefs, our opinions, our understandings while also giving rise to questions often unanswered by our parents. Not because they would not or could not answer them, but simply because they were not present when the question was asked. In the Old Testament, I believe, there is a scripture that says that given the first seven years of teaching to a child and they shall not depart from their ways (understandings). Some of the greatest and most subversive leaders in history were also aware of this premise and initiated change by altering the teachings of the children in schools to accept new ideas, ideas that were contrary to those of their parents. Parents who in many cases were not aware of these subtle changes in their children's thoughts and understandings.

Over the course of my lifetime I have seen these subtle changes take place. There was a time when children were sent to school after Mom prepared breakfast and she was there to greet them when they came home. She was there to answer their questions, correct information that they had heard, help with homework. She was the nurturer and teacher. Now, many children leave home without breakfast ( a vital meal to the learning process), they may grab a breakfast at school, then they are subject to all that is taught them during the hours from 7:45-2:45 or later. Many leave school to go to a day care and again the sphere of influence that encompasses that period of time. They hear other adults teaching them the accepted ideas and ideals of the day. They hear the child understandings as related from their friends and classmates as perhaps these children have over heard other adults talking about specific topics. When they do get home, often there isn't time for questions and so the ideas they have been surrounded with stay and wait to be added upon instead of corrected.

In the past 35 or so years this nation has seen many things that we have considered in the past to be wrong become an accepted right. There is no longer prayer in schools before the day begins, it is now acceptable to decide you do not want the baby you are carrying for whatever reason even if the child is full-term, it is also acceptable to end the life of someone considered terminal (something I have always found laughable considering each of our lives is terminal), we now embrace the concept that lifestyles contrary to biblical teachings are good and allow each of these "changes" in thoughts to be taught in our classrooms, yes, in our elementary, middle, high school, and college classrooms. We allow topics and conversations once considered horribly offensive to permeate our airways, newspapers, magazines, and even billboards. In addition, in these same classrooms they teach contrary to the teachings of the Bible, evolution, new family units, living together, and quietly remove our precious celebrations of the birth and death of our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ. They are also altering history in tiny increments and teaching that multiculturalism, political correctness, and not assimilation is best and that national pride and unity is wrong.

Yes, we are each sinners. Many of which are striving hourly to become more like our "Savior". Yes, we are taught that we should love others as He has loved us. But, let me interject something here that I took the time to teach my children at home and to their friends when the occasion arose, in schools where I taught, in church primary, and in the hospitals where I have also worked. There is a distinct difference between loving someone and liking someone, just as their is a difference in loving the person and not liking their choices.

The church, President Gordon B. Hinkley and the Twelve Apostles issued the Proclamation on the Family on September 23, 1995. Within those beautifully penned words the family is defined and the duties of parents are also made very clear.

The workings of the adversary are often very subtle and come slowly to alter what is acceptable by Heavenly Father's standards. No, it is not our place to judge, but it is our choice to understand the difference between rights and wrongs according to our scriptures. And it is our responsibility to uphold those values as written and taught. To do otherwise... well John Adams said it best in an address to Congress... "When this nation turns from God... this nation will fall." As I also understand the Ten Commandments that are no longer allowed in schools, courthouses, or public places... the Ten were not given as a pick and choose proposition.

[sdorociak]

Anatess, I am not really the one to ask about civil law, but I believe there is a difference in a "public business" open to all and a "private" one. Although I do remember certain "private" establishments being sued, i.e a men's club in Britain was sued and then after loosing had to also admit women, along with two of our military Academies. An apartment complex just as a rental house cannot discriminate potential rentors based on certain criteria, race, gender, religion, etc. They can however, place certain restrictions such as no pets, no smoking, no loud noise or parties after a certain time, etc. The private school can differentiate between parishioners and non-parishioners, just as a college can charge more for out-of-state-students. As to your private business... like the Distribution Center for example they differentiate in the selling of certain items based on "Temple Recommend" holders and non-holders.

[Maxel]

Thank you for your words, sdorociak. To me, they ring of truth and understanding.

I just wanted to add that there is a vast conspiracy to overthrow the Judeo-Christian ethic and the political doctrine of natural rights that dominated American culture and philosophy for so long. Its author is Satan, that old serpent, and he is responsible for the decay in morality we see.

[Just_A_Guy]

If I only want temple-recommend-holding LDS people in my private business of apartment housing... can I not do it?

Generally speaking, no.

There are exemptions for religious institutions. But for you, John Q. Public, it is illegal to offer or deny access to housing based on the applicant's religion.

[sdorociak]

Maxel, you are right on the money and until the vast majority begin to see that and fight against Satan's deception... Well, until then we are in deep trouble, this nation and the beliefs it was founded upon. I believe several of our prophets said it best... "...this nation and her Constitution will hang by a thread..." Joseph Smith, Jr. (White Horse Prophesy) and Brigham Young. You should read the White Horse Prophesy if you haven't already read it. In fact I wish every member and non-member would read it several times. Thank you for responding to my ramblings. It is good that we have a forum to come together and discuss our thoughts, beliefs, yes, even dreams to bolster and re-affirm our beliefs. We should take advantage of that sharing with other Saints for as long as we are permitted to do so. We should remember also..."where two or more are gathered in my name... there I am also" and He is as my grandmother taught me... always with us. How very blessed we are.

[ninelegyak]

In addition, in these same classrooms they teach contrary to the teachings of the Bible, evolution, new family units, living together, and quietly remove our precious celebrations of the birth and death of our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ. They are also altering history in tiny increments and teaching that multiculturalism, political correctness, and not assimilation is best and that national pride and unity is wrong.

Just a few points I want to make here, perhaps because I live in the city, where lots of different kinds of people brush by each other every day, including Mormon missionaries. With regard to not praying in public schools, it's not just about atheism and secularism, but it's also about making room for other faiths that immigrants have (as this country would not exist if it weren't for immigration). Kids can still pray in school, they can set up a LDS/Christian group if they'd like. There is no law against that, and never will be: "freedom of association." The Church is pretty clear about letting others worship who and what they worship, which is why the Church respects Muslim nations requests not to proselytize the Arab world (the Church would be expelled from most of these nations anyway, if it tried to proselytize). But my feeling is that the Church is comfortable with the work it's doing here and in other parts of the world, and not saying that this work should stop (by no means), but that there's a good system in place to "protect our children from secularism," and whatever else.

The other thing I'd mention is that same-sex attraction is not just something that exists outside the Church. It is also within the Church. There are gay LDS people who live by the Gospel, and take the single luxury of identifying as "gay" because it's the best word around to describe themselves, even if it comes with a lot of negative thinking from others. Many just say, "I struggle with same-sex attraction." But if you're married and have been living with this attraction for years, it's basically like: "I'm gay. So what? Stop pestering me about it." I do not believe this stance is Satanic. It is what it is.

[Guest]

Generally speaking, no.

There are exemptions for religious institutions. But for you, John Q. Public, it is illegal to offer or deny access to housing based on the applicant's religion.

JAG, I knew I could count on you for insight. Thanks!

So, okay, now I don't understand why gay-rights ordinances are necessary when it already exists... or is the point that now religious institutions are not exempt anymore?

[sdorociak]

Ninelegyak, Your secong point is accurate. These individuals are no different than an alcoholic who lives with their "cross" daily aware of what the wrong choice can bring. I was told a long time ago by a homosexual that it is their test, their cross just as we all have tests and crosses to bare along lifes path. Yes, there are those in our religion as well as other religions who have made the choice not to relinquish themselves to these promptings.

As to your first comments, I must beg to differ with you. A case was just won in Pensacola, Escambia county, Florida regarding this topic and one is to open shortly across the bay in Santa Rosa county. The ACLU brought the cases against the schools, yeachers, students. You may want to read up on this as it is not an isolated incident, but is happening all across this nation.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, I knew I could count on you for insight. Thanks!

So, okay, now I don't understand why gay-rights ordinances are necessary when it already exists... or is the point that now religious institutions are not exempt anymore?

It doesn't exist, on a federal level. The Civil Rights Act does not (yet) extend to sexual orientation.