Can you lose your temple recommend if. . .

[pam]

I would have thought it obvious that it's my opinion.

And so what if it's not the opinion of the majority of people here? That in itself doesn't mean it's wrong.

I'm just doing my job. Just doing my job.

[Hala401]

iinarihoudai ?

I knew I had seen this before, but don't remember. How I longed, but there was no one. Life is hard without.

It is surprising to find reference of this here.

[pam]

iinarihoudai ?

I knew I had seen this before, but don't remember. How I longed, but there was no one. Life is hard without.

It is surprising to find reference of this here.

He is talking to the person who started this thread. That is the username the OP uses.

[Blocky]

As far as I know, the Church doesn't push it's political views upon it's members in such a way. They'll ask you if you've ever engaged in homosexual relations, not whether you support others' rights to do so.

Is this question only for the guys? I don't remember ever being asked that. Maybe it's more of a new adult member thing?

[ruthiechan]

The same way laws against rape force people to abide by our archaic sexual mores.

Anarchists, unite!

Oh. Wait...

Vort, I like you, I really do, but sometimes you say some really asinine things. You cannot rightly compare sexual relations between two consenting adults to rape. The latter is traumatizing the former is not, regardless if the genders involved.

[iinarihoudai]

iinarihoudai, please don't go around accusing people of "forcing" others. Others can fornicate all they want - I simply don't support sanctioning such behavior by giving it legal status. I am not forcing anyone to live the law chastity.

Uh, it is already legal to have sex before marriage no matter the gender involved (though some states do have anti-sodomy laws which is goofy since heterosexual couples do that too).

The only reason why we have a problem with same-sex marriage is because of our religion. Remove the religious lens and there is no lawful reason not to allow it.

What needs to be done is more missionary work. In another thread two articles about gay Mormons were presented. These people had the gospel and were able to make a spiritually informed decision. If we were all better missionaries we'd have more homosexuals in the church choosing to either be celibate or to find opposite sex partners. The thread in question is here: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/46592-article-hetero-marriage-ssa.html

[Hala401]

Uh, it is already legal to have sex before marriage no matter the gender involved (though some states do have anti-sodomy laws which is goofy since heterosexual couples do that too).

The only reason why we have a problem with same-sex marriage is because of our religion. Remove the religious lens and there is no lawful reason not to allow it.

What needs to be done is more missionary work. In another thread two articles about gay Mormons were presented. These people had the gospel and were able to make a spiritually informed decision. If we were all better missionaries we'd have more homosexuals in the church choosing to either be celibate or to find opposite sex partners. The thread in question is here: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/46592-article-hetero-marriage-ssa.html

Knowing people who are both gay and lesbian, I think there is a lot of misinformation about the church disseminated within that group. And lets face it, gays and lesbians encounter a lot of hate from their own families. In the right context, I think the LDS church would be a good place for those willing to abstain.

I volunteered for a short time with a group called SMYRC (sexual minority youth resource center) because I was concerned about the high suicide rate. The stories I heard there were so horrendous that I simply could not continue. I was not strong enough.

People of faith need to know that there are situations out there that are horrible beyond our own capacity to grasp them.

One set of twins I met were male and female. For some reason, the parents castrated the male and fed him hormones, with predictable results. I met them once.

We moan and cry about what we think is important, and sometimes we are clueless.

[pam]

Uh, it is already legal to have sex before marriage no matter the gender involved (though some states do have anti-sodomy laws which is goofy since heterosexual couples do that too).

Actually you might be surprised to find out how many states have laws that prohibit sex between people who are not married to each other. It's just not enforceable.

When I worked for the military, there was even in their code rules pertaining to this.

[Vort]

Vort, I like you,

Thank you very much.

I really do, but sometimes you say some really asinine things.

Funny, that's exactly what I say to people I like.

You cannot rightly compare sexual relations between two consenting adults to rape.

Sure I can. I just did. And the point is valid, though you may not have recognized it.

The latter is traumatizing the former is not, regardless if the genders involved.

So in your mind, the difference is the trauma?

Therefore, if homosex traumatizes one or both of the willing parties, it is comparable to rape. Right?

And if the rape is performed on an unconscious person, and is therefore not trauma-inducing, then it doesn't count. Right?

I disagree with your logic, as my examples above illustrate. They are not well thought through.

My point -- which I think most careful readers would immediately discern -- is that it's stupid to say that a law "forces" people to do something and use that as an argument against making or enforcing the law. Laws against homosexuality no more "force morality" on people than do laws against rape, murder, or jaywalking.

In other words, every law is an imposition of morality. So claiming that a law is bad because it is an imposition of morality is saying that a law is bad because it's a law.

I suspect the vast majority of those who read what I wrote immediately understood my point. Sorry if you missed it -- but that's not my fault.

[ruthiechan]

Thank you very much.

Funny, that's exactly what I say to people I like.

Sure I can. I just did. And the point is valid, though you may not have recognized it.

So in your mind, the difference is the trauma?

Therefore, if homosex traumatizes one or both of the willing parties, it is comparable to rape. Right?

And if the rape is performed on an unconscious person, and is therefore not trauma-inducing, then it doesn't count. Right?

I disagree with your logic, as my examples above illustrate. They are not well thought through.

My point -- which I think most careful readers would immediately discern -- is that it's stupid to say that a law "forces" people to do something and use that as an argument against making or enforcing the law. Laws against homosexuality no more "force morality" on people than do laws against rape, murder, or jaywalking.

In other words, every law is an imposition of morality. So claiming that a law is bad because it is an imposition of morality is saying that a law is bad because it's a law.

I suspect the vast majority of those who read what I wrote immediately understood my point. Sorry if you missed it -- but that's not my fault.

Note the word *rightly*. We need to avoid using rape comparisons about these issues. Rape is a serious issue and is far more serious and prevalent than homosexuality. I understood your point behind the crass and horrible way you put it. How you present your point matters. By comparing rape to consensual homosexual sex you diminish the seriousness of rape. Find another way to make your point. Oh, wait, you did that with your explanation in the paragraphs starting with "my point. . ." and "in other words. . ." Your words would have been better received if you had done that in the first place.

[Vort]

Note the word *rightly*. We need to avoid using rape comparisons about these issues. Rape is a serious issue and is far more serious and prevalent than homosexuality.

Baloney. Comparison to more extreme examples is a well-instituted and universally understood method of argumentation.

I understood your point behind the crass and horrible way you put it.

Clearly, you did not. Just as clearly,*you still fail to understand it. If you did, you would not continue the silly line of argumentation that says my statement somehow equated homosex with forcible rape.

[HEthePrimate]

Vort, just because ruthiechan said something you don't agree with doesn't mean she doesn't like you.

Comparing consensual homosexual sex to rape is an asinine thing to say. How would you like it if someone compared your marital relations with your wife to rape?

Can you explain how supporting Prop 8 is forcing people to adhere to our belief system?

Some people belief it is right and good to allow same-sex couples to get married. That is part of their belief system. By legally disallowing them from getting married according to their belief system, your belief system takes precedence over theirs, and so they are not equal under the law, and you enjoy preferential legal status.

Edited June 11, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[Shawn_]

Uh, it is already legal to have sex before marriage no matter the gender involved (though some states do have anti-sodomy laws which is goofy since heterosexual couples do that too).

The only reason why we have a problem with same-sex marriage is because of our religion. Remove the religious lens and there is no lawful reason not to allow it.

What needs to be done is more missionary work. In another thread two articles about gay Mormons were presented. These people had the gospel and were able to make a spiritually informed decision. If we were all better missionaries we'd have more homosexuals in the church choosing to either be celibate or to find opposite sex partners. The thread in question is here: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/46592-article-hetero-marriage-ssa.html

You didn't point out how supporting Prop 8 (and similar laws in other states) is "forcing people to adhere to our belief system."

[Hala401]

A lot of this quarrel is from the disinformation from within the GBLT culture. Though, I don't personally think the LDS should make morality for anyone but the LDS. If the GBLT want to have SS marriage, how does that involve us.

We need to struggle with getting the plank out of our own eye.

From President Monson.

[Shawn_]

The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

California and Same-Sex Marriage

It says "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage." Isn't defending a child's entitlement enough of a reason? Is anyone here more enlightened than the First Presidency?

[ruthiechan]

Some people belief it is right and good to allow same-sex couples to get married. That is part of their belief system. By legally disallowing them from getting married according to their belief system, your belief system takes precedence over theirs, and so they are not equal under the law, and you enjoy preferential legal status.

It's interesting that you mention this. I am reevaluating my stance on this issue because I have learned that there are many legal disparities regarding the LGBT group. One that I find particularly disturbing is that those in civil unions do not have the same level of recourse as married couples when domestic violence arises.

[HEthePrimate]

California and Same-Sex Marriage

It says "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage." Isn't defending a child's entitlement enough of a reason? Is anyone here more enlightened than the First Presidency?

Were they speaking ex cathedra when they wrote that?

[HEthePrimate]

It's interesting that you mention this. I am reevaluating my stance on this issue because I have learned that there are many legal disparities regarding the LGBT group. One that I find particularly disturbing is that those in civil unions do not have the same level of recourse as married couples when domestic violence arises.

I did not know that, about the domestic violence. It seems to me that homosexuals should enjoy just as much protection from domestic violence as anybody else. Somebody will probably classify that as a "special right" the LGBTs are claiming, but IMO, it's just the opposite--they are seeking equality, to enjoy the same rights us heteros do.

[Shawn_]

...Some people belief it is right and good to allow same-sex couples to get married. That is part of their belief system. By legally disallowing them from getting married according to their belief system, your belief system takes precedence over theirs, and so they are not equal under the law, and you enjoy preferential legal status.

Thanks for that response. I see it this way (I added emphasis):

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition....

The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.

Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

The Divine Institution of Marriage

[iinarihoudai]

You didn't point out how supporting Prop 8 (and similar laws in other states) is "forcing people to adhere to our belief system."

HEthePrimate pretty much summed it up with this:

Some people belief it is right and good to allow same-sex couples to get married. That is part of their belief system. By legally disallowing them from getting married according to their belief system, your belief system takes precedence over theirs, and so they are not equal under the law, and you enjoy preferential legal status.

California and Same-Sex Marriage

It says "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage." Isn't defending a child's entitlement enough of a reason? Is anyone here more enlightened than the First Presidency?

Of course not. Again, I do not disagree with the message, merely the method in presenting that message. There are religions that believe there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Should they be denied practicing that belief? I don't think so.

Again, missionary work is the way, not legalese.

[Shawn_]

The message and method are both from the First Presidency. Have you read this lately: The Divine Institution of Marriage

[HEthePrimate]

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

Nobody is trying to "impose" SSM on anybody else. If same-sex marriage is recognized by the state, that simply allows those who want to participate in it to do so. It doesn't force anybody else to enter into or perform same-sex marriages. It doesn't deny heterosexual couples or churches any freedoms whatsoever, it just adds a freedom to a group (LGBT) that didn't have it before.

What I mean by the tongue-in-cheek ex cathedra question was that, unlike Roman Catholics, we do not believe our leaders to be infallible.

[Hala401]

Who is Shawn? I do not know if I need to re-boot or if something is wrong with the internet? Someone just sent me the LDS stand on the divine institution of Marriage. Fine. I am LDS, and support it. I just do not think we have the right to force our views on anyone else.

Have all the years from 1820 on not taught us about persecution for what we believe. Do you not realise that the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as a prophet is a long reach for some people? Did we like it when others tried to force us to stop what we believed? Do we have the right to inflict on others what was inflicted upon us?

I just wonder if this page is smoking yet. GAH !!!

[ruthiechan]

I did not know that, about the domestic violence. It seems to me that homosexuals should enjoy just as much protection from domestic violence as anybody else. Somebody will probably classify that as a "special right" the LGBTs are claiming, but IMO, it's just the opposite--they are seeking equality, to enjoy the same rights us heteros do.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking now too. My main reason for supporting prop 8 was the education thing, but after prop 8 was passed there was even more stuff going on in education. My husband was right that the two were separate issues. Realizing that, talking with people in the LGBT community, and discovering other disparities, the domestic violence one taking the cake, I starting thinking, wait a minute, there is way more to this than meets the eye.

I am thinking that the reason the Church supported prop 8 had more to do with gut reaction than divine intervention. There's even a term for this called ethnocentrism.

Ya know, at church during prop 8 it was constantly said that the only way to combat same-sex marriage was through true doctrine. That always sounded way more like missionary work than lawmaking to me.

I am also beginning to suspect that gay marriage, abortion, and all of these insane and stupid laws/requirements being put forth that rile people up are distractions put forth by the secret combinations within the government so we don't notice what they are doing.

[ruthiechan]

Who is Shawn? I do not know if I need to re-boot or if something is wrong with the internet? Someone just sent me the LDS stand on the divine institution of Marriage. Fine. I am LDS, and support it. I just do not think we have the right to force our views on anyone else.

Have all the years from 1820 on not taught us about persecution for what we believe. Do you not realise that the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as a prophet is a long reach for some people? Did we like it when others tried to force us to stop what we believed? Do we have the right to inflict on others what was inflicted upon us?

I just wonder if this page is smoking yet. GAH !!!

I see the same parallels.