
I think that people forget that these are just simply laws. God doesn't force these laws on us he simply tells us how things Run. He is not angry when he gives these universal laws. How many grown ups get upset when they tell a child that "If you put your hand in the fire you will burn" (there is no anger in this, it is just a fact)? It is just a law of nature. If the kid does put his hand in the fire the parent may be upset because of the suffering of the child they just warned.
The laws on Homosexuality are clear. He does not hate Homosexuals, but he is clear on this natural law that destroys. I think there is more corruption in the church than what is known. Treachery is worse than homosexuality, but I am not qualified to judge this...unfortunately. One should really question themselves if they support this homosexuality. Those that openly support the prophets are always in the minority and unpopular.
Some of you think that these laws are fickle and not up with the times. They are Universal laws that are true in any situation.
Quote form someone:
God's law is like a rock and we beat ourselves against it.
QUOTE |
Either you believe that we should be involved in this or not. And, Quasar my withdrawal in no way means that I concede defeat. |
This is the main gripe I have with the modern day thinking among the members, if this were the late 1800 would this even be a debate, I think not. Members today want the church to be politically accepting. It reminds of the struggles Moses had. Every move he made the people wanted it to be politically correct. Manna is not enough we need quail, a prophet is not enough we need a king, nagging women is too much we need a divorce, and now keeping sacred the marriage bond should be extended to the same sexes. Edited: McKay on 18th Nov, 2008 - 1:57am
I agree that the church gets involved with too many political points. I also agree that the government gets too involved with too many religious principles. The main consideration is where is the middle ground? If you want the government to tell you what marriage is and is not then they will do so for gays and polygamist too.
Well the government is suposed to be the voice of the people or "We the people", so if we want it this way or that then this should be what govrnment does. The church is just saying that we should take advantage of this process.
More and more I have felt that the majority of both proponents and opponents of gay marriage hold to extremely simplistic worldviews. Contrary to what many believe, the truth is a lot more complicated.
1 - Proponents claim "homosexuals are born that way". Long ago the drafters of the Declaration of Independence of the American colonies from Great Britain spoke of "self-evident truths". The fact is that although I believe it to be a truism, the premise that "all men are created equal" is not self-evident to me. That newborn infants are devoid of sexual preference in any way is very self-evident. Sexual preference is a result of years of conditioning, along with genetic influence. Additionally, homosexuality is often portrayed as a binary concept. The reality is that there is a spectrum of sexual attraction, with male being on one end and female on the other. Most people fall in the middle half of the spectrum, leaning towards one end or the other, and that place on the spectrum can shift over time according to ones environment and life choices.
2 - Opponents claim "homosexuality is a choice". Again, this statement does not speak to the complexity of human behavior and the underlying reasons that motivate it. More correctly, active homosexuality is a lifestyle resulting from a series of choices, which lifestyle cannot easily be changed.
You can't read or hear anything on the subject of gay marriage without hearing about rights being taken away from gays and lesbians. The truth? Gays and Lesbians are not a fundamental demographic group. Women are born female, and as such they are a demographic group. If sexual orientation is a basis for being identified as a demographic group, then what about musical orientation or culinary preferences? Can you imagine an America where I proclaim that my rights as a fat man are being denied? It's silly I know, but sadly plausible.
My last point for consideration is taken not from LDS doctrine, but from Taoist philosophy, although parallels certainly exist within the gospel. Most everyone knows of the oriental tradition of the opposing yin yang. Yin is described as female, dark, cold, fluid; yang is male, light, hot, rigid. The two bring balance to each other and are attracted to each other, and their presence in all of creation bring balance and harmony to all life. The imbalance of yin yang causes strife, war, pain, sickness, discord, and destruction.
Lehi stated that there must needs be opposition in all things, which is pretty much the same concept in different words. Romantic homosexual relationships bring disharmony and imbalance into the world, and should not be encouraged by the government. I believe the consequences of legitimizing gay marriage or much in line with what the principles of yin yang suggest.
QUOTE |
More correctly, active homosexuality is a lifestyle resulting from a series of choices, which lifestyle cannot easily be changed. |
QUOTE |
Long ago the drafters of the Declaration of Independence of the American colonies from Great Britain spoke of "self-evident truths". The fact is that although I believe it to be a truism, the premise that "all men are created equal" is not self-evident to me. |
QUOTE |
You can't read or hear anything on the subject of gay marriage without hearing about rights being taken away from gays and lesbians. The truth? Gays and Lesbians are not a fundamental demographic group. Women are born female, and as such they are a demographic group. If sexual orientation is a basis for being identified as a demographic group, then what about musical orientation or culinary preferences? |
Are those arguing for allowing the never before accepted practice of Homosexual marriage comfortable with the societal changes that are coming?
(in homage to JB's list, but on a more macro level)
1. Do we want Homosexual marriage to be on the same footing as Marriage between a Man and Wife?
2. Are you going to teach your children that different types of Marriage and living arrangements are equivalent?
3. Do you want schools to teach your children that they have a choice on the type of marriage that they want? (or will you teach this to them?)
4. Roles of Man and Women will be null and void, as far as society is concerned. I am sure that some of you celebrate this, but does this bode well for a generation of children who are raised in homes without the Male and female roles?
5. Should there be any limits on what type of Marriages the State should accept?
6. Should we abolish all societal standards due to the fact that there will always be a group who will rebel against those standards (rights of the individual vs. The right of the society?
7. When the view that Heterosexual Marriage should be the standard, if not the exclusive standard, will anyone who disagrees be persecuted? (Oh yea, this is already happening, Miss California.)
8. When will the view that Man/Woman Marriage is the only standard, be considered a hate crime and prosecuted by jail time?
Before answering that this will never happen, do not forget that the house just passed a law (H.R. 1913 April 30th 2009) that would open up prosecution for preacher's who taught against Homosexual marriage if a parishioner did something violent against another based on this speech.
We are heading into dangerous ground and I believe that the more our society accepts this practice, the closer it comes to the complete destruction as prophesied in the Scriptures.
I fear for my children, not because there are wicked individuals, as there have always been such, but because the righteous will not stand up for the right.