tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post7309676637287268818..comments2023-03-25T01:24:19.560-07:00Comments on 134:2: The Gay Marriage PostChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07585662693875100950noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-17022409941760313082009-09-21T19:53:27.852-07:002009-09-21T19:53:27.852-07:00Chris,
Not to play devil's advocate, but to re...Chris,<br />Not to play devil's advocate, but to really understand your position here (I promise!)<br /><br />I was reading an interview conducted with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy. They were being interviewed by two members of the church's public affairs staff. <br /> http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction<br /><br /><br />In it Elder Wickman says, "Same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence."<br /><br />I was wondering what you thought of this. It made me think about how you alluded to the idea that maybe homosexuals will be in one of the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11902110059235002538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-32054042581508142852009-09-14T19:33:42.822-07:002009-09-14T19:33:42.822-07:00I read over your post and I am pretty shocked! The...I read over your post and I am pretty shocked! The title of your blog in itself is so ridiculous...oxymoron? An LDS person who is a liberal and a democrat? Yes, big oxymoron...and I don't see how you don't see anything wrong with that. <br /><br />I think maybe in all your research, you should try reading over the Proclamation to the Family!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-75788990337449237812009-09-14T19:06:51.221-07:002009-09-14T19:06:51.221-07:00I disagree with you on many different levels here,...I disagree with you on many different levels here, but the real problem is your argument of mixing secular reasoning with LDS theology. I recently remember you using your “secular reasoning” to influence your decision making in one of your church callings. So, if the Church can’t intermingle “secular reasoning” and LDS theology, why do you do the same when YOU are put in a leadership position? <br /><br />P.S. the day the Lord decides to allow gay marriage in the church will probably also be the day he allows adultery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-53338498364115424262009-08-16T19:57:17.137-07:002009-08-16T19:57:17.137-07:00From a non-believer's standpoint, I just don&#...From a non-believer's standpoint, I just don't understand why this issue has to involve religion at all. As long as the state's recognition of gay marriage doesn't imply that religions have to "marry" gays in their churches, there shouldn't be a problem. <br /><br />The only way I could understand why religions would get involved in public policy about gay marriage is if the law would force churches to integrate these marriages into their own liturgies, which would never happen. <br /><br />Your point about a gay married couple living in Brigham Young housing is the biggest monkey wrench in my argument, however. But, perhaps BYU could still keep them out because the lifestyle conflicts with their religious views. And even though most gay couples wouldn't want to live in BYU housing, there's always some who will do it anyway to make a point. Just think--it wasn't long ago when the thought of gays going to church was laughable; why would they want to go to church when the Bible condemns them? But now, we have gay bishops in the Episcopal Church. Times can change pretty quickly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456469890367984766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-15749682873000586602009-08-02T14:19:57.116-07:002009-08-02T14:19:57.116-07:00I have to agree with all of your prior comments. I...I have to agree with all of your prior comments. I have only read this briefly, I think civil unions work great for a variety of people including those in a homosexual relationship, I appreciate your reasoning about respect while also an argument for traditional marriage, and final, I ask that you show as much tolerance with intolerant members, as they also need to be treated with respect and love, regardless of whether or not they deserve it.<br /><br />I greatly appreciate your call for respect and understanding among Church members. I'm do believe that the loudest voices are the intolerant ones. Thankfully, even in Utah I see many, many more instances of people showing respect and than I do of intolerance.(Yes I am talking about relationships with homosexual friends, neighbors, co-workers etc.) <br /><br />Two points, I don't think the Church's statement was meant to be a policy statement. I think it was meant to be a statement of religious belief, and how that relates to the issue. <br /><br />Second, I think you have too finely defined why the church has said that homosexual marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. I would recommend reading the interview with Elder Oaks on the church website. (It is in the newsroom section under public issues and then same gender attraction.) I don't know if you would like everything that is said but I think it is most relevant given some of your conclusions and hopes for the future.Russ and Emhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282748079500406110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-1313440068503222952009-07-15T19:37:05.064-07:002009-07-15T19:37:05.064-07:00Be careful not to be too angry and intolerant of i...Be careful not to be too angry and intolerant of intolerant church members. I've been down that road and there is nothing productive or good in that feeling. I hope you and Allison are having a great vacation. I am so jealous that you get to go without children!Daniellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08373367853736211523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-41167777697115912302009-07-15T09:10:08.534-07:002009-07-15T09:10:08.534-07:00Thanks for giving a logical reason as to why the g...Thanks for giving a logical reason as to why the government should protect "traditional marriage" but at the same time support the rights of all citizens. If everyone can come together on that point I think that's when progress will be made. <br />In the meantime I think some people on both sides of the issue are going about the debate the wrong way. At least in Utah it's pretty much a "You hate me so I hate you" debate and it's getting really old.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11902110059235002538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-8605747933120546352009-07-13T20:47:38.722-07:002009-07-13T20:47:38.722-07:00That is an interesting point. I've actually h...That is an interesting point. I've actually heard that proposed as a possible “work around.” We have two sisters each in their 50’s to 60’s living near us and I think that such a union could be very beneficial for them. I’m all for it. I’m not sure that would address fully all of the issues surrounding the marriage debate though, I need to think on it some more. Thanks for the comment!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11929139260452438204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5291229584839566217.post-45631333928419086032009-07-13T20:01:07.299-07:002009-07-13T20:01:07.299-07:00Chris,
I can't say that I have given this pos...Chris,<br /><br />I can't say that I have given this post the careful reading it deserves. Obviously you have put a lot of time into it. <br /><br />I will def. be rereading an commenting in further detail and with questions sometime soon.<br /><br />Every time I read a gay marriage blog or Prop 8, whether for or against, I have the same question..<br /><br />Why must these 'civil unions' only be based on two people in a sexual relationship?<br /><br />Why can't any two people get a union, be on each others insurance, and be the primary caregiver for the other person? This could mean elderly parent and adult child, or brother and sister, or friends. <br /><br />Why are we limiting this debate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com