Protest for gay rights outside Mormon church offices

[Heather]

The LDS Church re-emphasized Thursday night that its doctrine on marriage and family is based on respect and love, as 2,000-3,000 people protested for gay rights and recognition in downtown Salt Lake City.

2,000-3,000 protest for gay rights outside Mormon church offices in Salt Lake City | Deseret News

ksl.com - Gay rights activists protest LDS Church leader's remarks

[Seminarysnoozer]

The LDS Church re-emphasized Thursday night that its doctrine on marriage and family is based on respect and love, as 2,000-3,000 people protested for gay rights and recognition in downtown Salt Lake City.

2,000-3,000 protest for gay rights outside Mormon church offices in Salt Lake City | Deseret News

ksl.com - Gay rights activists protest LDS Church leader's remarks

Why is this in the Gospel Discussion section, is there a specific concern or question here?

[Soulsearcher]

LOL I tend not to question the woman who created the site lol, just saying.

[Seminarysnoozer]

LOL I tend not to question the woman who created the site lol, just saying.

I am not questioning the woman who created the site. I am wondering what the topic of discussion is with posting that other than it being a news story. What is the doctrinal topic? It could be various things, from freedom of speech, to the definition of marriage, to the definition of families, was the talk at an inopportune time, etc. Or was it just posted to take note of the event, like a news posting? ... just asking for something more specific.

[Soulsearcher]

I guess I'm at a loss as to why they can't just make it clear and avoid the infighting with members and those outside the church. It shouldn't be overly hard. God either tells the leaders there in no way people are born this way, or the church doesn't want to play the guessing game on origin of homosexuality and leaves such things up to science. Make a clear statement to all members in an official setting and then even the members can't really bicker. Right now even members don't know and it really does affect the way some of them deal with the issue. It's come up in chat a few times and it's funny how one line from A talk at conference can leave so much confusion, but everyone says what was said was very clear. If it's so clear why is there so much argument for both sides? That was the only reason for the protest really, a lot of people took Packer's talk as a massive change in direction, and yet so far i've seen half the members hear it one way and the other half hear it another way. The Church has made other things quite clear, shouldn't be hard to clear this up. Yes making it clear might make certain people more angry but at least the members in the church know 100% what the stance is.

[livy111us]

I would love to see a drug addict out there with a sign saying that the Church is discriminating against those who are dependent on substances. Why can't the Church just accept it's drug users? God is a loving God and wouldn't stand up against those who are hooked on heroin. We are who we are. DRUG ADDICT PRIDE!!!!

[Soulsearcher]

I would love to see a drug addict out there with a sign saying that the Church is discriminating against those who are dependent on substances. Why can't the Church just accept it's drug users? God is a loving God and wouldn't stand up against those who are hooked on heroin. We are who we are. DRUG ADDICT PRIDE!!!!

Except this protest wasn't so much about accepting the behavior as it was the church telling people that the church knows for sure there is no biological aspect to homosexuality. I don't expect the church to ever accept homosexuals and i'm ok with that. What i do have an issue with, as did the protesters, is that if there is a biological reason and you keep telling kids that it's their fault and only their fault because god had nothing to do with it, then when the child can't get rid of these feelings and desires it has a much bigger impact on them.

[Dravin]

Make a clear statement to all members in an official setting and then even the members can't really bicker.

Now that's a lot of optimism. :)

[Soulsearcher]

Now that's a lot of optimism. :)

LOL I know, but when i get to sit in chat and see that one line out of the talk no one can reach an agreement on i think it might be healthy lol. Not like the church has never made very clear statements in the past lol.

[NeuroTypical]

A few quotes:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

President Boyd K. Packer - Cleansing the Inner Vessel - October 2010 General Conference

What Research Shows

In addition to having counsel from the Lord’s prophet to provide guidance, it is helpful to have accurate information about homosexuality and its development. First, it is important to understand that homosexuality is not innate and unchangeable. Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic. Even more important, many researchers whose studies have been used to support a biological model for homosexuality have determined that their work has been misinterpreted. What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors. These factors may include temperament, personality traits, sexual abuse, familial factors, and treatment by one’s peers.

When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction - Dean Byrd - Sept 1999 Ensign

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only “free according to the flesh” [2 Ne. 2:27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose.

Same-Gender Attraction - Elder Dallin H. Oaks - October 1999 Ensign

[Soulsearcher]

I see a lot of "we don't know" and "might be" So again not a clear statement. Quoting Packer doesn't help cause we still half members arguing with members as to what the exact intent of the line meant. Through each of the quotes they don't rule out a biological factor, in fact support a possible biological factor. Dallin Oaks was also part of an interview with another Speaker for the church when it was quoted that it was best left to science to figure out the cause. So out of all the quotes i've read i still see enough room for people to guess because there is no clear statement.

First, it is important to understand that homosexuality is not innate and unchangeable. Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic.

So is it both changeable and not innate or is it innate but changeable. Also while it hasn't been proven to be genetic it hasn't been dis proven either, so is it wise to make it 100% sure statement or just comment on the fact it may or may not be true.

[zippy_do46]

mmmmmm so if the Church says you can not help being homosexual then you will agree that marriage is only between a man and woman? I think not.

Edited October 8, 2010 by zippy_do46

[erog84]

I see a lot of "we don't know" and "might be" So again not a clear statement. Quoting Packer doesn't help cause we still half members arguing with members as to what the exact intent of the line meant. Through each of the quotes they don't rule out a biological factor, in fact support a possible biological factor. Dallin Oaks was also part of an interview with another Speaker for the church when it was quoted that it was best left to science to figure out the cause. So out of all the quotes i've read i still see enough room for people to guess because there is no clear statement.

So is it both changeable and not innate or is it innate but changeable. Also while it hasn't been proven to be genetic it hasn't been dis proven either, so is it wise to make it 100% sure statement or just comment on the fact it may or may not be true.

My view of the statements the church has made are those things don't really matter. What matters is whether there is agency involved in participating in things that are not in line with God's commandments(in this case homosexuality). To me its very clear the church's stance is on that, which is overwhelmingly that there is always choice, whether its innate/genetic or whatever. So while at judgement certain things may be factor in pertaining to the level of temptation, its still a sin. Many innate things(natural man) are against God's will, so regardless if homosexuality is part of us as mortals or not doesn't take away from it being wrong.

[Soulsearcher]

mmmmmm so if the Church says you can not help being homosexual then you will agree that marriage is only between a man and woman? I think not.

I've never ever said i don't agree with the church it's self limiting marriage, or any religion. I do have an issue with the civil benefits being only given to men and women. Make civil unions fully equal on non-religious basis and i'll have no issues at all. I fully want to see the rights of marriage in religious institutions protected.

[Soulsearcher]

My view of the statements the church has made are those things don't really matter. What matters is whether there is agency involved in participating in things that are not in line with God's commandments(in this case homosexuality). To me its very clear the church's stance is on that, which is overwhelmingly that there is always choice, whether its innate/genetic or whatever. So while at judgement certain things may be factor in pertaining to the level of temptation, its still a sin. Many innate things(natural man) are against God's will, so regardless if homosexuality is part of us as mortals or not doesn't take away from it being wrong.

Again except that it can change greatly how the majority of members actually approach the homosexuals they deal with. Too many people still say it can be cured and it's the sole fault of the gay person. Realizing it might be part of them and might not be able to be cured and just need to not be acted on changes the amount of guilt and torment people feel if they are never "cured"

[zippy_do46]

"Make civil unions fully equal on non-religious basis and i'll have no issues at all."

Define non-religious basis please.

[Soulsearcher]

"Make civil unions fully equal on non-religious basis and i'll have no issues at all."

Define non-religious basis please.

In Canada they did it the right way, the passed the gay marriage law with a "not withstanding clause" meaning it can be opted out of by groups such as any faith and they are protected from any action against them for not performing or condoning the marriages. Give the civil benefits while protecting the religious aspect. Already done with straight marriages to a point, just carry it over.

[pam]

Well let's see why this might be posted in LDS Gospel.

LDS Gospel Discussion (14 Viewing)

Discuss LDS teachings. Ask questions about LDS theology or doctrine.

Heather states in her OP:

The LDS Church re-emphasized Thursday night that its doctrine on marriage and family

[Suzie]

I have nothing against this protest. It's their right and they're using it.

[zippy_do46]

In Canada they did it the right way, the passed the gay marriage law with a "not withstanding clause" meaning it can be opted out of by groups such as any faith and they are protected from any action against them for not performing or condoning the marriages. Give the civil benefits while protecting the religious aspect. Already done with straight marriages to a point, just carry it over.

Marriage??? This is the circle then.

We both have a choice in what we believe. You have yours and I have mine. I respect your belief but do not agree with it.

I also believe the conference was not one of confusion. It did not promote hate.

[Soulsearcher]

Marriage??? This is the circle then.

We both have a choice in what we believe. You have yours and I have mine. I respect your belief but do not agree with it.

I also believe the conference was not one of confusion. It did not promote hate.

Not sure how it's a circle. The issue behind most of the Gay marriage movement is the fact partner who devote themselves to a single person they love for the rest of their lives want the same civil benefits as married couples. Being civil benefits don't require many of the same criteria that religious marriage does, and even goes to couples that clearly don't hold marriage in any reguard it's seen as a fair request. The couple that married in vegas after knowing each other for 20 min is seen as superior to the couples who's lived together ten years and been completely faithful and loving, only because the vegas couple is a man and a woman, not sure i see how that protects marriage or any relationship really, though this has been hashed out time and time again in many threads.

As for the confusion, I agree there shouldn't be any confusion, i found what was said quite clear as did many other members, however others are seeing something different. Not overly sure how many times i can point out that members since sunday have said " see you weren't born this way, so you can change at will" Now with out any sure proof for or against this stand point, these members will now go up to members of all ages who are gay and say that being they aren't born this way cause god says so through a talk at conference(again, quoted from members since the talk) that the reason they aren't changing is all their fault. Even if they aren't acting on it, the fact they still have the desires is their fault. This can and has had very bad results. I agree there was no hate intended or really relayed through the talk, just room for misunderstanding that's already taking root.

[Justice]

The Church has made official statements. They have been linked in this forum over and over.

SSA (Same Sex Attraction) is a chemical or hormonal imbalance of some kind (not really understood), but absolutley in many (or most or all) situations people are born with.

SSR (Same Sex Realtion) is NOT the same thing as a "condition," it is an act and as such can be decided upon.

It is not all that much unlike when a man or woman has an attraction to someone of the opposite sex they are not married to. A man or woman did not choose at birth to be attacted to the opposite sex. But, he or she can control the relational behavior.

I suppose I could find the link again if anyone is interested in reading it.

[Soulsearcher]

The Church has made official statements. They have been linked in this forum over and over.

SSA (Same Sex Attraction) is a chemical or hormonal imbalance of some kind (not really understood), but absolutley in many (or most or all) situations people are born with.

SSR (Same Sex Realtion) is NOT the same thing as a "condition," it is an act and as such can be decided upon.

It is not all that much unlike when a man or woman has an attraction to someone of the opposite sex they are not married to. A man or woman did not choose at birth to be attacted to the opposite sex. But, he or she can control the relational behavior.

I suppose I could find the link again if anyone is interested in reading it.

If you could find it i would greatly appreciate it, I'm kinda tired of being told the stance has changed.

[zippy_do46]

1 Corinthians 14:33 (King James Version)

33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

The circle is defining "marriage"

[Intrigued]

A few quotes:

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

President Boyd K. Packer - Cleansing the Inner Vessel - October 2010 General Conference

Yet some are preset hermaphrodites..

Quote:

What Research Shows

In addition to having counsel from the Lord’s prophet to provide guidance, it is helpful to have accurate information about homosexuality and its development. First, it is important to understand that homosexuality is not innate and unchangeable. Research has not proved that homosexuality is genetic. Even more important, many researchers whose studies have been used to support a biological model for homosexuality have determined that their work has been misinterpreted. What is clear is that homosexuality results from an interaction of social, biological, and psychological factors. These factors may include temperament, personality traits, sexual abuse, familial factors, and treatment by one’s peers.

When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction - Dean Byrd - Sept 1999 Ensign

Those factors also include a persons genotype among other things. So what he is saying when you get to the bottom of it is that homosexuals have no control over it. I hate to break it to Mr. Dean Byrd -- but the psyche of a person is largely biological [and inheritable] (this is why things like depression and other mental instabilities run in families). So, in his opinion, it is half biological (and subsequently God given) and half environmental.

Which is an entirely fair statement.. but to act like there is nothing biological behind it.. is silly IMO.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Intrigued