jdawg1012 wrote:natasha wrote:Do we know for sure that Harry Reid was referring at all to same sex marriage? I don't think he was. I think he was referring to the fact that attitudes might be changing regarding everyone having the right to be employed and not be discriminated against. It would be another one of those laws that really doesn't have any "teeth". Example: Can't discriminate because of age....doesn't even ask for your age on an application...but it does ask what year you graduated from high school, college, or whatever. Simple math can come pretty close to how old an applicant is....but you can't prove a person was discriminated agains because of age....unless, I suppose, there's a witness that heard the person doing the hiring say he or she is too young or too old.
I think that the entire premise of the thread, and the bolded portions, are misinformed, and misleading.
The church is against same sex "marriage" because of CERTAIN privileges it conveys. The church has never given the license for it's members to behave in many of the ways that they do, and has never been in agreement with many of the attitudes members reflect, about how to treat homosexuals. The fact remains, that the members of the church ARE changing how they act towards people, and it's not because of doctrinal changes (Reid did not, to my knowledge, say that), and the church HAS SUPPORTED non-discrimination laws. The lengthy (and I do mean lengthy), press release of a matter of months ago clarified the subject:
(This is merely one of many questions):
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/i ... attraction
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?
ELDER WICKMAN:
One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”
As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship.
Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.
Apparently, according to the church, the church, itself, has been vague. There's nothing that has given supposed disciples of Christ license to behave the way many are behaving towards homosexuals. That being said, many people are changing those attitudes. It doesn't reflect a change in the church doctrine, and only slightly, that of church policy. It reflects a change in the attitude of overzealous members that act stupidly in some instances. I know many people who have lived through adultery. Adultery does more damage to family, and societies than same-sex "marriage" ever could. It's impossible for homosexuals to sin (via sexual relations), worse than an adulterer. Simply impossible to be worse. Even....maybe close, but NEVER, EVER, EVER worse. Additionally, Christ himself said that those who divorce and remarry are adulterers, by the way. I have yet to see an anti-divorce rally, or anti-adultery rally. But I digress.
In any event, I know of no statement by Reid about changing doctrine, or about the church and same-sex marriage. What I did read him saying is true, on a whole people's inappropriate and overzealous attitudes are in fact changing. But the minority group of reactionaries are just as zealous as every.
(*Note, I personally do not support any kind of anti-discrimination ordinance, nor government involvement in marriage, I think government should enforce civil contracts as appropriate, but if "marriage" is a religious sacrament, like baptism, that the government should be out of the industry altogether. The problem (re: marriage) is one of over-reaching government, not over-reaching homosexuals. There should NEVER be two classes of people, and a restoration of a constitutional government would fix these issues--feel free the search my posting history on the subject.)
As I have often said, paranoia has no place in godliness. People need to really can it on assuming that everytime someone who you disagree with on a normal basis says something, you must immediately oppose, however blindly or foolishly, what they say or shout it down, etc. Reacting is foolish, and as Brigham Young is famous for saying ," He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” That's the main aim of the adversary: provocation and pulling our strings, getting us to react and not let ourselves think rationally about what is going on. In fact, if one reasoned well within the gospel context, one shouldn't be dictated in their activities by the nonmembers or some random immature jerk, but by the Lord's inspiration. The Lord calls the rules, the Lord knows better than any of us would like to think, and often find ourselves corrected.
I used to understand the whole hype about conspiracies, fear that many church members had that the church would be grounds for legal prosecution with it's policy. But for myself, as a somewhat recent 21st century young adult convert have felt, and often renew that feeling, we really live in a golden age of missionary opportunity, that is what the Lord expects of us now, and we really have no time of letting any of our detractors and ungodly provocateurs detract from our efforts in seeking to take advantage of a very real golden age that is still in session right now. Again, sometimes this irrational fear and gullibility to the extreme fringe of politics reaches the point of rediculous.
But then again, the preoccupation with politics is what makes most members of the church, including Harry Reid a little bit of an embarrassment. No real party, no third party, etc, is a legitimate vehicle for the gospel. It should be less of a concern to you if your favorite politician or party wins as opposed to events like Vai Sikahema's groundbreaking address for the Philadelphia Temple, or perhaps people like myself who are glad to see a Philadelphia Temple close by in the making, or perhaps having a nice time with my new workplace and getting to know the people that constitute my coworkers . Yes, we see the world through windows, but it is ultimately our decision if we choose to color the windows dark as opposed to keeping them clean and transparent. Again, there's always things to be thankful about, but like basketball, politics is something that members and nonmembers alike would make the world better by having some decent sportsmanship, and not regarding it as the end of the world if their party is or is not winning, third parties included, and please, mind how you represent people as well, as out of context, and paranoid reasoning that one's politics would somehow bring the Apocalypse should it no longer rule the world absolutely was the same wicked thinking that brought about the Church's awful latter-day persecutions in the 19th century. Politics is a game, grow up and treat it as such, it shouldn't be something worth throwing temper tantrums for or playing Pharisee in your own church in order to win.
I know, I may sound odd for mentioning Philadelphia Temple stuff, but being in Valley Forge, that's local church news for me.
I think people need to get over the hype of same-sex marriage and realize for a second, the fact that in a broader context, people need to get over the fact that a lot of relationships, such as roommates, siblings sharing a home away from home, children having their parents live in with them, are also valid under the nondiscrimination act. Knowing the context as to which this variety of relationships applies, it's worth getting over the paranoia that we should cognitively dissent because it just might qualify a benefit for a lot of people, not just homosexuals. In fact, shared benefits with my Mother was something that I did, I gave over shared insurance benefits to my own mother because I was well, in a situation of being stuck as a single LDS guy and I wanted to save money for a while until I found my wife, and getting my own house before then, with my fluctuating situation of getting contract jobs one after another after earning the degree made life a little shaky. Again, people need to get over the paranoia of who might benefit from contract relationships, it's narrowminded and very counterproductive.
As a side note, I would also mention that my uncle, the oldest child of my grandfather, has also decided to take care of my Grandfather and claim the role, legally, of my grandfather's caretaker. I consider this an honorable pursuit, and a thing that is probably not a bad idea for a church member that feels up to the task of caring for an elderly parent. Again, many members of the church get a little blindsided sometimes when talking about contract relationships, in short, I do agree that by not recognizing separate classes of people you are being at least sane, and not a fool of the adversary, after all, doesn't Satan love it when people respond to his provocations?
At least the church's policy on chastity is fair, and I mean fair in the sense that they teach you with extensive priority that all kinds of unchastity are comparably wrong, unlike in other cases where an organization either says little to speak up about flings or premarital sexual relations.
