Though I suspect I’m about to do what I can to change that.
Hey, folks. On reading this thread, I’ve seen a wonderfully thorough job of everyone doing emotional calesthenics: Leaping to conclusions, getting bent out of shape, and twisting the facts.
Point: A number of very nice people belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Some belong to this board as well.
Point: That church, like many another, finds homosexual activity a sin, and a homosexual orientation an occasion to sin, and claims to be able to change.
Point: That church, to a greater extent than most, has been active in the political arena, using its not inconsiderable clout in the West to influence the passage of laws which correspond to its beliefs on what constitutes moral behavior.
Now, this does in fact put people like PLG in a bind. I completely understand her point that one takes people as people first and then, if at all, as members of subgroups of humanity.
The problem, as spelled out in detail here, is that her chosen faith does not. I do fully understand the idea of fellowshipping and disfellowshipping, and I have the word of Monty, whom I trust quite implicitly, that orientation is not grounds for disfellowshipping. It does, IMHO, put a burden on those with SSO who are being earnestly counseled to “change” and who are, in many cases, psychologically incapable of changing. I think Snark’s point, made out of painful self-knowledge, that it should be possible but will take a lot of long and hard effort to do, should underscore that.
Before we go any further, and I get accused of Mormon-bashing, let me bring a separate strand into this.
Dr. Daniel Heimbach is Professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest NC, near here, and was recently defeated in the primary for the Republican nomination for Congress in my district. As a sidebar to an article in the Sunday, October 8 Raleigh News and Observer entitled “Have Gays ‘Arrived’?” he wrote the article at the link, which should be accessible. (It’s copyright and non-reproducible online.) http://archives7.newsbank.com/bin/gate.exe/RLEC?f=nav_doc&state=vjvs6a.3.6&sub_type=&p_nb_id=V60C5ATPOTcxNzA2NjA0LjczMjI3NDoxOjEzOjIwOC4xNy4zNi4yMDA
This resulted in numerous letters to the editor, which are found at http://www.newsobserver.com/monday/news/q/Story/235326p-226376c.html
So it’s hardly a Mormon thing. But this sort of attitude is prevalent in most churches to some degree or other.
Satan, I have to differ in one small degree with you on one point. There are some vehemently anti-gay Episcopalians, including a few bishops. But how our church works out things like this is to take a stance of attempting to reconcile views and come to some common ground that may not satisfy anybody’s full views but at least represents a consensus that all involved may be comfortable with. In our case, that idea that all people, regardless of any details in their makeup, are God’s children and entitled to love and respect as our brothers and sisters in Christ is the key one. And nobody would carry the authority of the church as a whole in making polemic comments on this or any other issue. I would be entitled to remain part of my chosen faith and advocate for what I feel is the right course, without feeling as though I’m fighting against authority – because “authority” would not have taken a stand I needed to fight against. Some leaders might have; but others would be “on my side.”
I felt that Snark’s comments represented a red herring, not because he was purposefully dragging one in, but because the issue he dealt with, and alleged to be what Elder Packer was commenting on. I have not seen that pamphlet, and I presume Snark has, but the remarks quoted in the article both from Packer’s address and from the pamphlet did not appear to have anything to do with forcible or coercive sex. I think our gay contingent here would be as quick as anyone to state that such behavior is condemnable. What Packer seemed to be focusing on was consensual sexual activity between two people of the same sex. It is, of course, his privilege to regard this as a sin, as do many people, and as a church leader to speak out against his co-religionists engaging in it.
In this country, it is not his privilege to compel people not of his faith to observe his standard of morality. As it is not the privilege of Heimbach, or Fred Phelps, or Mel White, or Esprix, or Satan, or Pepperlandgirl, or Squid Vicious, or Drain Bead, or you who are reading this or me.
This is what offends me about the Mormon stance on gays. Not that they are internally prejudiced. That’s their problem, and they share it with a lot of other Christian denominations. But that they, and a few other groups, feel that it is their God-given responsibility to try to enforce their morality in the civic arena. SOCAS works both ways.
Incidentally, Heimbach may be very well versed in Baptist moral theology. But I suspect one could learn far more of Christian Ethics from Vanilla’s son than from him. 
And to end this post on a lighter note, let me note Esprix’s reaction to the Evergreen illustration:
Shame on you, 'Sprix! You’d deny the Man of Sorrows a little human affection? 
