SL Tribune: Mormon church is evolving, Steve Young’s wife tells LGBT crowd

[Misshalfway]

Mrs. Young says the church is evolving. Well, in a sense I hope it is. The city of Enoch figured it out. I mean the true lessons of love and the conquering of fear. If what she suggests is that we as a people are moving in that direction, then I'm all for it.

However, all eternal progression must obey eternal law. We can't truly progress unless we do that too. And that means the laws of obedience and sacrifice right along with all the commandments about love and charity.

I don't know what all the answers are. What I do know is that in general we humans aren't very good to each other. Especially when we see others doing/being something different. And then PC says its appropriate to judge and to warm. I don't disagree...its just that I don't know much about judging other people. I know I do it and I know it usually resembles stepping in poo.

As far as I can tell, the answers aren't in making allowances for behavior the Lord has forbidden. In my view, if we are truly learning the lessons of love and truly loving the children of men in spite of all the "sin", then we have no need to compromise. We'll be hitting the mark. At the end of the day, I think that is what people are trying to accomplish. Not sure any of these arguments or the remarks of Mrs. Young are hitting the target.

[Misshalfway]

I also wanted to say that self love goes a long way. I think the lessons of love are often the hardest fought on the inside of a person. And when society or churches, or family doesn't love us, it hurts. And when it hurts we want to attack or correct the offending party. It's understandable and we all do it regardless of what our circumstances are.

But at the end of the day, we can't control the universe or mother in laws. We can't make people understand or love what we ourselves do not understand or love. So, at the end of the day, it isn't about anything but the individual. So Gay folks, start loving yourselves. I'll try to learn how to love myself too. We'll love out there to the degree we love inside here (pointing to my heart). The rest, including your own choices about what you do with your sexual stewardship and the resulting consequences, is between you and God. Just as it is with me and everyone else too.

[Traveler]

Mrs. Young says the church is evolving. Well, in a sense I hope it is. The city of Enoch figured it out. I mean the true lessons of love and the conquering of fear. If what she suggests is that we as a people are moving in that direction, then I'm all for it.

However, all eternal progression must obey eternal law. We can't truly progress unless we do that too. And that means the laws of obedience and sacrifice right along with all the commandments about love and charity.

I don't know what all the answers are. What I do know is that in general we humans aren't very good to each other. Especially when we see others doing/being something different. And then PC says its appropriate to judge and to warm. I don't disagree...its just that I don't know much about judging other people. I know I do it and I know it usually resembles stepping in poo.

As far as I can tell, the answers aren't in making allowances for behavior the Lord has forbidden. In my view, if we are truly learning the lessons of love and truly loving the children of men in spite of all the "sin", then we have no need to compromise. We'll be hitting the mark. At the end of the day, I think that is what people are trying to accomplish. Not sure any of these arguments or the remarks of Mrs. Young are hitting the target.

I liked reading your post and it could possibly open up another discussion - or related discussion. I think the point I want to add has to do with social structures and the concept of "Law". In order for a society to exist there must be laws to govern that society. The reason there must be laws is because there will always be elements that will work towards weakening and destroying a society. As a matter of fact, historically, all societies have gone through cycles of growth and collapse that have ended all previous societies so far.

What we would hope is that mankind can evolve social structures that are sustainable. If this is indeed possible - I believe that the laws of a sustainable society are paramount.

I have had discussions where I have been told that morals should not influence laws. In response I believe the exact opposite is the reality and that this fact needs to be better understood. The fact is that morals are the only possible influence for just law. The universal gravitational constant, pi or any other non-moral related reality is not going to be changed or influenced by passing a law. The only reason to pass a law is when one segment believes in a moral that some other segment does not. Law then stipulates how the two opposing segments deal with the differences. Other than this purpose - I cannot think of a reason for law.

So in essence law is the means by which one segment of the population imposes its morals on other segments. We have learned by experience in history that all unjust laws are nothing more than one segment trying to force morals on other segments of the society that in fact do not benefit the society - but are intended to give specific individuals advantages in society or to limit specific individuals that are benefiting society. This is not complicated. It is why when someone wants to change something within a society - I ask a very simple question: What is the benefit of the change for society.

If those that are for a change and believe it to be good and necessary - What is the benefit that they believe can only be accomplished by the change. If they cannot produce an exclusive benefit that is can only be achieved by the change and a benefit that is at least arguably worth the cost of the change - I believe it is worth considering. In fact I believe that responsible members of the society must oppose such a notion. But if proponents of a change have not thought it through well enough to understand an exclusive benefit to society and are not sure that the cure is not worse than the disease - I do not see any reason to put society at such a risk in order that they impose their morals on the rest of us.

The Traveler

[thatguy21]

There are benefits for gay marriage at an individual level and societal level.

Let’s first take a look at societal benefits; the first one that comes to mind is that families are building blocks to societies. If gays were allowed to marry it would create more families. It would allow gays to legally adopt kids that are in our foster care system, 250,000 currently. It is the same concept as if a heterosexual couple were to create a family. That is except, when a child adopted into a family it is actually more beneficial to society then bringing a new child in to the world. Adopting a child helps bring said child from being a societal problem to a societal benefit.

The second part is that a loving couple is allowed to be joined together. This is a benefit because statistics show there are ample benefits to being married. It creates more stable people, pays higher taxes, less crime, less welfare and there are many more benefits. Those benefits alone prove the worth a gay marriage, that coupled with adoption makes it even more beneficial. It does not matter what the building block is, gay or straight, it is still a building block.

Some will argue that since it is a gay couple it would not be a building block. It does not matter what the makeup of the family is, families are building blocks. To assume merely because people are different then us they do not hold the same value is absurd. It is the same argument racists used to keep blacks from being equal in our society and the same argument used to keep women away from the ballot box. It is not based on any logic, merely prejudices that have compiled in ones mind without a sense of rationality.

The second societal benefit is the end of a deep divide. This is a tension that is hurting our society, brother vs. brother, sister vs. sister. If this tension could be alleviated it would make for a better society. Coupled with, the fact it may even help our government get more done for the betterment of our society. There is ample evidence and common sense reasoning to show gay marriage will be allowed in the near future. Any fighting by either sides is putting off the inevitable, that gay marriage will be allowed. That means the tension in our country is an exercise in futility causing us to waste time, resources and energy.

Now the individual benefit could be argued as the best benefit. To say individuals do not is akin to being a advocate for Fascism or the evil versions of Communism. That is not who we are, when our identity is that we are all children of God. To disregard that identity for ourselves and our neighbors in matter that we choose is being a cafeteria Mormon. I think most will agree individuals do matter and need to be considered in any decision. People are not a means to an end, they are an end.

With that in mind, we should not deny human beings what we desire or have, being married to somebody they love. I think all of us can agree, we have common sense, that gays do love their partners. They are not sub-human or alien and do not love those they want to marry. Think about when you were married is that, at least outside the Temple, a love all people deserve. All it takes is a few seconds of lite thinking to realize the individual benefit.

The burden now rests with those who argue there are no benefits.

[Misshalfway]

I don't think I'd ever argue that there are no societal benefits. At least in terms of mormon doctrine on the subject, such an argument is beside the point.

[Dravin]

I don't think I'd ever argue that there are no societal benefits. At least in terms of mormon doctrine on the subject, such an argument is beside the point.

It's one of Traveler's go to discussion points on this subject though which is why thatguy21 most likely brought it up.

[Traveler]

There are benefits for gay marriage at an individual level and societal level.

Let’s first take a look at societal benefits; the first one that comes to mind is that families are building blocks to societies. If gays were allowed to marry it would create more families. It would allow gays to legally adopt kids that are in our foster care system, 250,000 currently. It is the same concept as if a heterosexual couple were to create a family. That is except, when a child adopted into a family it is actually more beneficial to society then bringing a new child in to the world. Adopting a child helps bring said child from being a societal problem to a societal benefit.

The second part is that a loving couple is allowed to be joined together. This is a benefit because statistics show there are ample benefits to being married. It creates more stable people, pays higher taxes, less crime, less welfare and there are many more benefits. Those benefits alone prove the worth a gay marriage, that coupled with adoption makes it even more beneficial. It does not matter what the building block is, gay or straight, it is still a building block.

Some will argue that since it is a gay couple it would not be a building block. It does not matter what the makeup of the family is, families are building blocks. To assume merely because people are different then us they do not hold the same value is absurd. It is the same argument racists used to keep blacks from being equal in our society and the same argument used to keep women away from the ballot box. It is not based on any logic, merely prejudices that have compiled in ones mind without a sense of rationality.

The second societal benefit is the end of a deep divide. This is a tension that is hurting our society, brother vs. brother, sister vs. sister. If this tension could be alleviated it would make for a better society. Coupled with, the fact it may even help our government get more done for the betterment of our society. There is ample evidence and common sense reasoning to show gay marriage will be allowed in the near future. Any fighting by either sides is putting off the inevitable, that gay marriage will be allowed. That means the tension in our country is an exercise in futility causing us to waste time, resources and energy.

Now the individual benefit could be argued as the best benefit. To say individuals do not is akin to being a advocate for Fascism or the evil versions of Communism. That is not who we are, when our identity is that we are all children of God. To disregard that identity for ourselves and our neighbors in matter that we choose is being a cafeteria Mormon. I think most will agree individuals do matter and need to be considered in any decision. People are not a means to an end, they are an end.

With that in mind, we should not deny human beings what we desire or have, being married to somebody they love. I think all of us can agree, we have common sense, that gays do love their partners. They are not sub-human or alien and do not love those they want to marry. Think about when you were married is that, at least outside the Temple, a love all people deserve. All it takes is a few seconds of lite thinking to realize the individual benefit.

The burden now rests with those who argue there are no benefits.

To begin with I do not see the argued benefits as being actual benefits of homosexuality. There is no correlation between what is being argued as a needed benefit and the acts of homosexuality. Really! – The only way to solve the existence of unwanted children is for society to encourage homosexuality? The only way to solve tension in a society is to encourage homosexuality?

Clearly a homosexual can have a behavior that is beneficial to society but that is not the question. The benefits argued here are not because there is not enough homosexuality in society. I would submit that all the things being argued for a benefit for society are false benefits not truly associated with homosexuality but something else that can be achieved in society without homosexuality. That all the points being argued as a positive benefit of homosexuality are not really a result of homosexuality that can and do exist as well in individuals that are not homosexuals.

In the discussion of homosexuality there are many claims and accusations being made outside of clear and logical thinking. All that I have asked for – is a clear statement of a benefit that proponents of homosexuality understand to be necessary to justify for them, me or anyone to support and encourage homosexuality as the only means or even the best means to better society. I submit that in reality, what is being argued so for are “things” disconnected completely from homosexuality.

The Traveler

Edited September 19, 2013 by Traveler

[Swiper]

Making the civil rights of citizens of United States conditional to some subjective "benefit to society" analys is unacceptable. That's a scary slipperly slope path to places we don't want to go.

[Traveler]

Making the civil rights of citizens of United States conditional to some subjective "benefit to society" analys is unacceptable. That's a scary slipperly slope path to places we don't want to go.

What constitutional right (civil right of citizens) are you talking about?

As a side note - do you believe that civil rights are connected to civil responsibilities? How do you define civil responsibilities without civil benefit?

The Traveler

Edited September 19, 2013 by Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

There are benefits for gay marriage at an individual level and societal level.

Let’s first take a look at societal benefits; the first one that comes to mind is that families are building blocks to societies. If gays were allowed to marry it would create more families. It would allow gays to legally adopt kids that are in our foster care system, 250,000 currently. It is the same concept as if a heterosexual couple were to create a family. That is except, when a child adopted into a family it is actually more beneficial to society then bringing a new child in to the world. Adopting a child helps bring said child from being a societal problem to a societal benefit.

Technically, you don't have to be married to adopt a child. Not even in Utah.

The second part is that a loving couple is allowed to be joined together. This is a benefit because statistics show there are ample benefits to being married. It creates more stable people, pays higher taxes, less crime, less welfare and there are many more benefits. Those benefits alone prove the worth a gay marriage, that coupled with adoption makes it even more beneficial. It does not matter what the building block is, gay or straight, it is still a building block.

Are the benefits as pronounced for same-sex couples as they are for hetero couples?

And if a couple is already committed to each other and alredy cohabiting, what is it about the legal relationship of marriage in and of itself that confers these benefits?

Some will argue that since it is a gay couple it would not be a building block. It does not matter what the makeup of the family is, families are building blocks. To assume merely because people are different then us they do not hold the same value is absurd.

I recognize that the Supreme Court disagrees with me; but I'm not convinced marriage is intrinsically a civil right. (Cohabiting and sexual relationships fall under the right to privacy and free association, but state-sanctioned marriage? I don't think so.). State-sanctioned marriage was developed to address two major issues: the fact that one party to the marriage was not an economically self-sufficient unit, and the fact that the union would produce children. Those assumptions no longer hold true--for either straight couples or gay couples. As a conservative with libertarian sympathies, I believe that if a government activity doesn't confer a direct benefit to society it should probably end. IMHO state family benefits should be based on child-rearing (whether the child-rearer is gay, straight, or single), not based on whether or with whom one shares one's bed.

It is the same argument racists used to keep blacks from being equal in our society and the same argument used to keep women away from the ballot box. It is not based on any logic, merely prejudices that have compiled in ones mind without a sense of rationality.

Guilt by association--always a winning argument . . .

The second societal benefit is the end of a deep divide. This is a tension that is hurting our society, brother vs. brother, sister vs. sister. If this tension could be alleviated it would make for a better society.

You won't end the tension unless you can stigmatize condemnation of gay relationships the way we've stigmatized racism-and quite possibly, not even then. The inevitable "cure" of suppression of religious expression will be worse than the disease.

There is ample evidence and common sense reasoning to show gay marriage will be allowed in the near future. Any fighting by either sides is putting off the inevitable, that gay marriage will be allowed. That means the tension in our country is an exercise in futility causing us to waste time, resources and energy.

What I'm reading here is: Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Also: shut up.

But if you want to play, I'll play:

There is ample evidence and common else reasoning to show that the Second Coming will occur in the near future, and non-celibate gays (and those who have aided and abetted their fornication) will finally be shown the error of their ways. Any fighting by either sides is putting off the inevitable. That means the tension in our church is an exercise in futility causing us to waste time, resources and energy.

With that in mind, we should not deny human beings what we desire or have, being married to somebody they love.

Are you similarly outraged over the civil marriage policies of nations like Israel, then?

Let's be candid. It isn't the marriage (or lack thereof) that galls most gay-rights advocates; it's the fact that people are still willing to openly state that gay sex is wrong. Neither that opinion--nor the outrage it creates in people such as yourself--will end with the universal adoption of gay marriage, and it's frankly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

[thatguy21]

All that I have asked for – is a clear statement of a benefit that proponents of homosexuality understand to be necessary to justify for them, me or anyone to support and encourage homosexuality as the only means or even the best means to better society.

If you are not for homosexuality in particular on the basis that the act does not better society then you are not for sexuality in general.

[Guest]

If society had no sexuality, society would disappear. Not the same thing.

[jerome1232]

If you are not for homosexuality in particular on the basis that the act does not better society then you are not for sexuality in general.

it does not follow....

[thatguy21]

it does not follow....

If there is no benefit to homosexuality, what is the benefit to heterosexuality? In this day, when we have 250,000 abandoned children in America alone, it does not follow that the benefit of sexuality is reproduction to further the race. You could even logically argue, that reproduction in this age is more of a hindrance then a benefit.

[Traveler]

If you are not for homosexuality in particular on the basis that the act does not better society then you are not for sexuality in general.

I personally believe that an individual's sexuality is their private business and that no one has the right to make public anyone's private behavior. However, I also believe that if someone wants to make their private sexuality public that they have no right to criticize any public comments or discussion that they receive for making what should be private - public. Unless, what is being said is not true.

I also do not believe that anyone has the right to dictate to me what I must support - either as a private individual or a member of a lawful society. I believe in a live and let live attitude. But then again I believe that a person should live by structure and discipline themselves according to the best understanding of their beliefs. I believe that sexuality should be controlled privately and with discipline by an individual. I also believe that failure to discipline one's self will eventually result in personal failure.

Thus I do not believe the the force of law ought to be used to justify any sexuality or for that matter any other behavior that cannot be proven to provide an unique and necessary benefit for a society that is governed by the rule of law.

As to my understanding heterosexual behavior has the proclivity to result in women becoming pregnant and children being born. I believe that the best condition for children to be born is with the institution of traditional marriage and family. For this reason I believe that society must support and encourage marriage and family specifically for those willing to so discipline their heterosexual behavior.

For those that hate such a tradition and institution and insist that society must change such tradition in order to rectify problems within the society - I think are most likely foolish and illadvised. But I am open to discuss any and all actual benefits that they believe will be realized in society - but to be honest - so far I find the arguments poorly prepared highly, prejudicial, entirely emotional and not founded in reality. Which is what is claimed of any one that would even ask questions or seek honest and open discussion.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

If there is no benefit to homosexuality, what is the benefit to heterosexuality? In this day, when we have 250,000 abandoned children in America alone, it does not follow that the benefit of sexuality is reproduction to further the race. You could even logically argue, that reproduction in this age is more of a hindrance then a benefit.

Except that some countries are encouraging more childbirth. So no overall hindrance.

I'm generally "whatever" when it comes to gay sexuality and even marriage, but you're arguing that the only way to deal with those abandoned children is through encouraging homosexuality. I fail to see how the solution works.

[Traveler]

If there is no benefit to homosexuality, what is the benefit to heterosexuality? In this day, when we have 250,000 abandoned children in America alone, it does not follow that the benefit of sexuality is reproduction to further the race. You could even logically argue, that reproduction in this age is more of a hindrance then a benefit.

It is a very bad thing to feed children to alligators. It is not difficult at all to discover many things that are better than feeding children to alligators. But just because something is better than feeding them to alligators is not reason to justify anything. Especially in trying to use the force of law to say that anything is better than or equal to children being raised by their biological parents in a loving marriage.

I have no problem with homosexual adopting children when a better opportunity is not available for children - but I do not believe that it is necessary to change the purpose of marriage as the only possible means to solve abandoned children. I do not believe there is any historical data that proves that societies that encourage homosexuality have less of an abandoned children problem than societies that do not. Even if some exception can be found - I am not sure that a scientific trend can be demonstrated or implied. But If you want to use that argument I am willing to consider you proof.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

If there is no benefit to homosexuality, what is the benefit to heterosexuality? In this day, when we have 250,000 abandoned children in America alone, it does not follow that the benefit of sexuality is reproduction to further the race. You could even logically argue, that reproduction in this age is more of a hindrance then a benefit.

It doesn't matter how many abandoned children there are, it's the eventual end of the human race, and any society comprised thereof, without reproduction. You could reasonably argue that reproduction beyond a certain rate is more of a hindrance than a benefit but to argue that reproduction, period, is a hindrance is an idiotic position to take unless your goal is to see the end of the human race. The continuation of the human race is predicated upon reproduction.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

[thatguy21]

The Traveler

It is easy for somebody to merely issue a challenge regarding benefits of homosexual marriage; then ignore the arguments because they do not have a sound rebuttal. The same thing goes for what, I guess, you are saying that there is no good argument for homosexuality. Let me ask you, what are the negatives to homosexuality and gay marriage? Also, do you have any rebuttals to the arguments for gay marriage? Moreover, are you implying, anything that does not benefit society as a whole should be thrown out? If so, what is your scale to measure if something benefits society?

[thatguy21]

Except that some countries are encouraging more childbirth. So no overall hindrance.

I'm generally "whatever" when it comes to gay sexuality and even marriage, but you're arguing that the only way to deal with those abandoned children is through encouraging homosexuality. I fail to see how the solution works.

I do no think it is the only way. But, would you agree that if gays were allowed to marry and adopt it would help reduce the amount of kids in foster care?

[Backroads]

I do no think it is the only way. But, would you agree that if gays were allowed to marry and adopt it would help reduce the amount of kids in foster care?

I don't know if it would significantly reduce the amount. I don't see the gay community as any more desiring of adoption than straights. Would letting gays adopt magically pull all these foster kids into loving homes? People are still people and sexuality has nothing to do with the desire to adopt a child.

[Just_A_Guy]

I do no think it is the only way. But, would you agree that if gays were allowed to marry and adopt it would help reduce the amount of kids in foster care?

Not necessarily. Two reasons:

First, contrary to popular belief, you do not need to be in a straight marriage to adopt a child. Singles can--and do--adopt, routinely.

Second, I think you'll find that gay couples, like straight couples, typically (not always, but typically) don't want to adopt just any child. They want an infant--or if that's not possible, then at least a physically and emotionally healthy child. Have you tried to adopt such a child--or known someone who was trying?

The unfortunate truth is that kids in foster care often have been exposed to various kinds of trauma or have specialized ongoing needs that prospective adoptive parents, quite frankly, just aren't ready to cope with. And I think you and I both know what would happen if states said "gay couples can only adopt out of the foster care system; they can't adopt infants from birth".

Under the circumstances, an increase in gay couples adopting kids would just mean that demand for healthy babies would be higher than ever, while the number of kids languishing in foster care would only be diminished nominally--if at all.

(But then again: once you decide that religious conservativism = homophobia, and homophobia = hate, and hate = abuse, all kinds of things are possible. Maybe that's the end-game. Why stop at redistribution of wealth, when you can redistribute children?)

Edited September 19, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

Not necessarily. Two reasons:

First, contrary to popular belief, you do not need to be in a straight marriage to adopt a child. Singles can--and do--adopt, routinely.

Second, I think you'll find that gay couples, like straight couples, typically (not always, but typically) don't want to adopt just any child. They want an infant--or if that's not possible, then at least a physically and emotionally healthy child. Have you tried to adopt such a child--or known someone who was trying?

The unfortunate truth is that kids in foster care often have been exposed to various kinds of trauma or have specialized ongoing needs that prospective adoptive parents, quite frankly, just aren't ready to cope with. And I think you and I both know what would happen if states said "gay couples can only adopt out of the foster care system; they can't adopt infants from birth".

Under the circumstances, an increase in gay couples adopting kids would just mean that demand for healthy babies would be higher than ever, while the number of kids languishing in foster care would only be diminished nominally--if at all.

(But then again: once you decide that religious conservativism = homophobia, and homophobia = hate, and hate = abuse, all kinds of things are possible. Maybe that's the end-game. Why stop at redistribution of wealth, when you can redistribute children?)

I will put the comment out that it's been noted that gay couples have actually been more willing to adopt at risk and disabled children than straight couples on the average. It might not always be the majority but it has been working out that way from what i've read in the past. if needed i'll try and find it but i do know it was a while ago that i read it.

The discussion about benefits to society and such does come to be problematic. What once used to be a more clear benefit of heterosexuality has now more become a possible benefit. Where the majority of heteros got married and had families, it must be admitted that this focused has dropped a bit in the recent past.

While i agree homosexuals can lighten the load a bit in the area of foster and disabled children it really doesn't speak to travelers point. To be honest I'm not sure i can come up with a benefit in the way he's thinking. Some have begun to argue that homosexuals are "mother natures" population control. I don't know if i believe it and i know that would never fly on this site.

The benefits i see really do fall down more to a person by person scale which in total can lead to a much larger benefit for society. The ability to be me makes me more productive, it makes me happier and makes me in general more willing to try and contribute to society, to strive to make things better. That being said `better`can be subjective. I`m not a benefit to society because i`m gay, but i am a gay person trying to benefit society.

I tend to look at travelers question much the same as `how does being left handed benefit society` or `how does being a red head benefit society`. is that a fair question or do we really have to find their benefit to show they have a valid place in society? Gay people still have the genetic material to reproduce and many do either in natural or slightly unnatural ways, so their sexuality really doesn't take away their human benefit to society, just as infertile heterosexuals are still not questioned on if they offer anything beneficial to society.

MOE brought up the idea of removing the stigma around homosexuality and yes that could have huge potential to offer some benefits to society. and i tie this into something JAG said.

Let's be candid. It isn't the marriage (or lack thereof) that galls most gay-rights advocates; it's the fact that people are still willing to openly state that gay sex is wrong. Neither that opinion--nor the outrage it creates in people such as yourself--will end with the universal adoption of gay marriage, and it's frankly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

In a way JAG has a point, but i want to compare it to something LDS people will understand. There is a difference between someone saying to a member of the church " i disagree with your faith and i think you are wrong" and the conversation ending there. " i think you are wrong, i think you are going to hell, I'm going to try to prove how wrong you are and spend effort trying to make you see how wrong you are and i'm not going to even really think about how you feel while i do it" tends to fall under the "anti" definition and that tends to make most lds uncomfortable, upset and in some cases willing to lash out or really not act in the spirit they know they should. It's really not different with gays. They can take the simple " i think it's wrong, but it's your life not mine" might not sit perfectly well with us but meh, it is what it is, people disagree, it happens. The tone and the extent and intent of what's said tends to be what people find the issue with.

One of the funniest things i find on dating sites are guys pretending to be straight. they are scared to death of the backlash of people finding out they are gay so they refuse to commit and just seek out random sex because settling down would open them to being found out. This leads to huge issue, physically, mentally, socially. Remove some of the stigma (there's still so much more than people think) and maybe we can start trying to get a lot of the well known issues in the community under control. Doesn't mean you have to like or respect it, but in reality show the respect you would show someone of another faith or that you wish to be shown, it can make a huge difference though i know this idea horrifies some. there's things i hate to see in the gay community and they tend to be the focuses of those who have issue with the community and i stop to wonder if both sides see how they can be feeding into it and i hate seeing how both sides feed into making situations worse.

the message i read today kind of speaks to what i'm saying, and the LDS have started to slowly follow this as well

Pope criticizes church emphasis on abortion, gays

[Just_A_Guy]

In a way JAG has a point, but i want to compare it to something LDS people will understand. There is a difference between someone saying to a member of the church " i disagree with your faith and i think you are wrong" and the conversation ending there. " i think you are wrong, i think you are going to hell, I'm going to try to prove how wrong you are and spend effort trying to make you see how wrong you are and i'm not going to even really think about how you feel while i do it" tends to fall under the "anti" definition and that tends to make most lds uncomfortable, upset and in some cases willing to lash out or really not act in the spirit they know they should. It's really not different with gays. They can take the simple " i think it's wrong, but it's your life not mine" might not sit perfectly well with us but meh, it is what it is, people disagree, it happens. The tone and the extent and intent of what's said tends to be what people find the issue with.

But . . . but . . . we're right!!!!

In all seriousness: I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's quite that simple. I mean, look at racists (to whom we conservative Mormons have already been quite generously compared in this very thread). Even relatively genteel expressions of racism are immediately pounced upon. The problem isn't the way the attitude's expressed--it's the attitude itself.

The playbook has been leaked; the writing's on the wall. Mormons and other religious conservatives aren't just supposed to "play nice". Like yesterday's racists we are supposed to retreat quietly into the shadows, never to be heard from again except when we are trotted out in eighth-grade history lessons on Harvey Milk Day as a reminder of what a despicable place America used to be.