Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a difference a few years makes. The whole reason the courts had to reverse the law is because of a proposition that specifically designated marriage to be between a man and a woman-the Mormon Church was one of the most vocal supporters of that proposition.
Today, Im not sure the Church will interfere. A few months ago, the church appeared to be changing its tune a bit by agreeing to meet with Affirmation, a gay rights group out of Utah. A spokesperson for the church even commented that while this doesnt signal a change in official church policy(yet) things are headed "in the right direction"
Gay Mormons to church: Don't fight California court ruling (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/28/state/n085103D49.DTL&type=politics - broken link)
the church is doing all that it can to be fair, and to be supportive, without actually saying that, or acting like homosexuality is a good thing. there are some people in this world that really do strive to live the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality. granted, they are probably few and far between, but they are out there.
that said, anyone that thinks that the church is going to change its official position is deluding themselves. it is directly tied to one of the most fundamental principles of the church, an eternal family, mom+dad+kids. so, while the church may be looking for better ways to associate with, support, and comprehend gays, they are never going to say that it is all right.
the church is doing all that it can to be fair, and to be supportive, without actually saying that, or acting like homosexuality is a good thing. there are some people in this world that really do strive to live the whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality. granted, they are probably few and far between, but they are out there.
that said, anyone that thinks that the church is going to change its official position is deluding themselves. it is directly tied to one of the most fundamental principles of the church, an eternal family, mom+dad+kids. so, while the church may be looking for better ways to associate with, support, and comprehend gays, they are never going to say that it is all right.
aaron out.
All true, Still one can dream.
The official position of the church is that a gay person can be a member in good standing so long as they are celibate.
I find that intriguing and feel that it at least leaves a door open for further examination.
This is my main concern with gay marraige. Will any and all church(es) have to perform an act that many churches view as wrong? Could a couple sue if a church declined to perform services? Personally, I can accept civil unions - from a legal stand point. The whole State telling a Church what it must accept is my main issue.
This is my main concern with gay marraige. Will any and all church(es) have to perform an act that many churches view as wrong? Could a couple sue if a church declined to perform services? Personally, I can accept civil unions - from a legal stand point. The whole State telling a Church what it must accept is my main issue.
No, the State will not dictate to a church who they have to marry. It is 100% up to the couple's church. Marriage is a civil document, not a religious one, although it is celebrated religiously.
Good point. In speaking of the Catholic church today, they've been denying marriage to heterosexual people (I'm sure Protestant churches also, though I'm less familiar) for centuries!
I don't see it being an issue at all (given previous precedent of denial) --
I said no to gay marraige, civil unions or whatever the PC term is today. A friend had a good enough argument for civil unions so I accepted those. Someone else cited the Loving v. case and now I don't think that I could legaly argue against marraige. I just don't want values imposed on a church (that's their job).
Some interesting editorials in both LA & NY Times praising the timing of Gov. Patterson decision to support California gay marriages. A major crack in the icy gripe of bigotry & ignorance.
The official position of the church is that a gay person can be a member in good standing so long as they are celibate.
I find that intriguing and feel that it at least leaves a door open for further examination.
true. the church does not try to castigate homosexual impulse. just homosexual act. i think that there is enough evidence to support that some people really are just born that way (though i know some that i am pretty sure made the change because they thought it was the cool thing to do). and yes, i do think that the door is open to new possibilities.
anytime two groups of people can sit down, get over differences, and understand each other better, is a time for me to celebrate.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
All true, Still one can dream.
The official position of the church is that a gay person can be a member in good standing so long as they are celibate.
I find that intriguing and feel that it at least leaves a door open for further examination.
The world renowned Mormon Tabernacle Chior would not be worth crap if they kicked all the gay altos out of it!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
