I don’t know, Lynn, I think they do have the right to raise their children as bigots, or as anything else.
But we have the right to call them on it, denounce them as bigots, and oppose their policies when they do.
Ugly
Go ahead, be frank with me.
In fact, be anyone you’d like.
Nice points, all. Amazingly, I think there is actually some air being cleared and some viewpoints being changed in the course of this…at least clarity on what different people are saying. Maybe we should move more Great Debates to the Pit, so they’ll be conducted civilly? 
Otto, may I compliment you on a compassionate post? I’m sure Snark doesn’t see it as such, but from a third-party viewpoint, it certainly was.
Back to the points at hand:
Snark, when I spoke of “loving another man” being why God made you gay, I was not (necessarily) referring to sexual love. Unless you are a much more sociopathic person than your posts over the last several months would lead me to believe, any relationship you are involved in, be it friendship, sexual, marital, whatever, will have some human caring involved in it. My thinking is that you may find yourself attracted to another man, perhaps someone who is in need of human love, because of your sexuality, and be able to respond, within your moral scope, in human love to this person and be what he needs to help himself out of his problems. This in my mind would be a use of your sexuality that would be completely in accordance with God’s will according to conservative Christian doctrine, and I would think Mormon as well, since on this issue at least there is no theological difference. I love a great number of people, some on this board, some IRL. Very few of them are people I have any interest in hopping in bed with. All of them are people for whom I’d go the extra mile, give robe and shirt as well, etc.
That is all hypothetical. More to the point is that you need (my opinion, but backed by every psychological work I’ve ever read on the subject) to accept yourself and your desires for other men to deal with your problems in any way, shape, or form. What you do with your genitals is your business. But a close relationship that is not founded on honesty and mutual self- and other-acceptance is bound to founder, whether it be marital, romantic, close friendship, homosexual, heterosexual, or with a consenting adult sheep.
I did not and do not mean to slam your Prophet. While I disagree with his putative inspiration, and believe him misguided on this issue, I was simply alluding to the fact that any person who takes it upon himself, whether called to do so by others and/or the Holy Spirit or not, to pronounce God’s will in human affairs stands a terrible risk of self-righteousness and investing his personal prejudices with supposed divine authority. Be he saint, sinner, demagogue, inspired prophet, or whatever, he runs that risk and will answer to God for how he has exercised his ministry. I pray, and hope you join me in doing so, that he speak with divine justice and compassion investing his words.
Rousseau (and Snark as well), I truly fail to see how consenting to recognize same-sex unions (civilly or religiously, with whatever term you care to invest them) injures “the sanctity of marriage.” Either marriage is invested by God with honorability and holiness or it is not. Saying that two men who have been true to each other for 50 years have not had a “marriage,” but the numerous legally-sanctioned liaisons of Tommy Manville, Doris Duke, or Barbara Hutton are, does not seem like anything that even the Divine Weasel would stoop to.
Beyond which, assuming for the moment that even if homosexual orentation can be changed, it takes severe effort that many will not puruse, then you are left with numerous homosexuals who are unwilling to change. (I personally do not believe that change is possible, other than a bisexual suppressing his/her homosexual “side,” but that is a moot point.) Given this state of affairs, what is better for society, promiscuity and “circuit parties” that even the most vehement pro-gay theologias would have to call immoral, or committed relationships? Memo to the lurker who is thinking of posting something about AIDS here: Two people who are not HIV+ cannot give each other AIDS, whether they be active homosexuals, heterosexual singles, celibate monks, or devout fundamentalist Christians.
Rousseau, I do take your point. Certainly we don’t want our children to be like them. Therefore they should be repressed and relegated to the back corners of society. As Lynn so ably pointed out, if you substitute “black” instead of “gay” for “them,” you come across as the most despicable of racists. Or run through history, and dig out the Albigenses, or the Arians (apparently nice guys, for the most part, according to what I’ve read). How about the Jews? The Italians, the Irish, the Poles? What about all those Hispanics trying to change America from the pure white place it’s always been? (Native Americans reading this, please see the irony in that before you blast me! :))
Take a good look, Rousseau, with compassion. Thank God you are not Snark, having to deal with the problems that he deals with every day, and still is able to post with a smile and a positive mood. And maybe see that the "they"s of this world are really "we"s. My race is human. The people I love are human. I’m not about to draw lines and say who is “people” and who is “those others.” And I encourage it on you.
Polycarp, Snark here under a new name. I don’t have any problem with non-sexual love between two men.
As far as accepting myself, I can do that, with the condition that I am working towards perfecting myself and changing in the process.
I agree that the Prophet is accountable before God, as are all men and women. I accept his words as truth when he is speaking as a prophet. This is part of what it means to be LDS, to accept that the Lord communicates through prophets, even in our day.
SSM being recognized legally is a danger because MANY more people will enter into such a relationship if it’s legal than if it isn’t. The same thing happened with abortion after Roe v. Wade, as I understand it: many women who otherwise would never have even considered an abortion because it was illegal, had one simply because the law said they could.
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
You Moth-balled the “Snark” handle? Well, thranx for the agreeable answer. I just hope Rose doesn’t show up as “Pip”! 
Yep, Snark’s history. Just be glad I didn’t choose Abalamahalamatondra as a name. I truzt the new name will not drag you down. I need all the hype I can get with a name like this…
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
I’m an angry, angry man; and since you said you would no longer respond to my posts and have done so twice since then, you’re a lying, lying man.
First, I will address Rousseau:
Your argument against same-sex marriages is you don’t want to teach it to your kids?
{snicker}
{snort}
{GUFFAW!}
{BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!}
{wiping away tears} Oh, that’s choice. Truly. {hee hee hee} I’m going to write that down.
{ahem} OK, so where I start?
Your feelings are not wrong - raise your kids any way you please. Your position, however, is asinine.
Are your paltry parenting skills threatened by, say, the Amish? I assume you don’t want your kids to turn out Amish, so maybe they ought to be deported? Or Mormons? Or Catholics? Heaven knows I disagree with them and wouldn’t want my kids to turn out that way! Say, what about sewer workers? That’s a pretty icky thing to choose as a career - maybe we should just get rid of them, too. And, heck, integration was a bad idea - after all, some southern whites didn’t make judgements about blacks as individuals (“Why, some of my best friends…”), but they certainly didn’t care for them much as a race - they’re so dirty and lazy and, well, just icky all 'round.
Now, I believe now you’re going to say that your point is that this is the way American society is, and, well, we just need to deal with that, right? Once again, our differences are glaringly apparent. Otto is right when he says that because people have been taught that homosexuality is bad, your argument seems to be that gay people should just roll over and accept being treated as bad, i.e., denied equal treatment under the law. Well, then, I guess I’ll just go out and pick some cotton for you, there, massa…
(Oh, and by the way, if people don’t want their kids to turn out gay, I believe that is a definition of homophobia, so your argument is not “beyond ‘homophobia’ or ‘homohatred’,” its defined by it.)
Your reason for being against SSM’s, as stated above, is that you are intolerant of the differences in other people and irrationally fear those differences will somehow adversely impact your life; by definition, you are a bigot and a homophobe. Congratulations, and pick up your diploma on the way out the door.
And you put your foot farther up your ass:
“Just because you can’t ride in the front of the bus you think you’re ‘second-class?’ Why, there’s plenty of room in the back of the bus!”
“Just because you can’t earn the same pay as a man you think you’re ‘second-class?’ Why, staying at home and raising children is an admirable position!”
“Just because you were gassed at Auschwitz you think you’re ‘second-class?’ Why, you’re lucky to have survived at all!”
Just because I am not treated equally to you I think I’m “second-class?” Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. How uppity of me to want an end to discrimination.
Again, I’ll agree with Otto:
If you feel a marriage license is so irrelevant to a relationship, then what is the harm in giving me one? Does this mean you plan on not getting married, since obviously your love will transcend all things legal? And I hardly see how 1,049 marriage-related benefits are “overblown.” Even if it were just for hospital visitation rights, would that still be “overblown?” How cold and heartless are you? You’re proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. And if these benefits are so minor, why not just give them to me? Wouldn’t that be eaiser than wasting everyone’s time? Or are you afraid of the “give 'em an inch, they’ll take a mile” rule? Dem uppity faggots - what noive!
I wrote:
This question still has not been answered to my satisfaction - specifically in a discriminatory/law context. I proport that SSM’s would benefit society by raising the bar on not only the tolerance of the differences in its members, but in the acceptance of those differences.
Finally, Rousseau’s words to live by:
Well, I think that about sums it up for me. G’nite! 
For the record, I have raised the following points to Rousseau and they have not been answered or addressed in any way:
[list=1][li]You never pointed out where I claimed homosexuality was 100% genetic, so please apologize for saying that I did.[/li]
[li]Is there a higher authority than you from which you will accept factual data?[/li]
[li]Provide me with actual research data that proves that homosexuality is a choice and can be changed.[/li]
[li]Provide me with actual research data that proves that homosexuality does not occur among wild animals in their natural habitats.[/li]
[li]How was your day spent being gay?[/li]
[li]If homosexuality being a choice means we can discriminate, then can I not hire a Christian if I’m the boss because I don’t like their lifestyle choice?[/li]
[li]Comments on the case Otto cited about the long-term lovers’ death.[/list=1][/li]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face="Verda
No, Poly, no need to chang emy moniker. Still orange…and still with Bill…
But if God already knows what will happen as an outcome of the test, what’s the point?
First, there is no comparison between rapists and murderers and gay people. Second, what is the function of prison? At the very least, it is to remove from society those who through their conduct harm others. Since being gay does no harm to anyone, your analogy fails.
Please explain, specifically, how the legalization of SSM threatens any family. Please tell me which family would be threatened. Give an address and phone number so that I may speak to this family and determine for myself that SSM will threaten it. Please explain which families in those countries which recognize same-sex unions have failed as a result. Again, please be specific. Some form of SSM is legal in a number of European countries; Canada is about a month away from legalizing common-law SSM. Can you offer examples of God’s wrath being visited upon those countries as a result? I am heartily sick of people jabbering about how SSM will threaten “the family.” We are families too.
Good question. Why doesn’t God do that? Why does God create His children to suffer, when he already knows what the outcome of that suffering will be?
I tried plenty hard for years. I ended up making myself miserable, lonely and depressed. I alienated myself from my family and found it almost impossible to make friends. Then I realized what a monumental waste of time and energy it was.
There is no comparison between being gay and molesting a child.
So don’t. No one will make you. If you have heterosexual desires, congratulations. Don’t date men, don’t have sex with men.
But you’re really confusing me here. First you say that there’s nothing wrong with same-sex attraction. Then you say it’s bad. Then later on you say it’s OK again. So which is it?
Since you don’t plan on having sex with a man, what does it matter?
So if the prophets issued an edict tomorrow that SSM was dandy, you’d be OK with it? If they stated tomorrow that the world is flat, does that make it so?
Maybe what needs to change is the mainstream. I thought you weren’t having any sexual behaviour.
And I don’t want to marry a woman.
The legal analysis has been done here to death.
Which commandment is it that says “Thou shalt not legalize same-sex marriage”?
What is your evidence? Please cite studies.
So don’t do it. Who’s asking you to? FYI, anal sex is not exclusively the provence of homosexuals.
How odd that God would lay down a doctrine and then tell His people not to do it. How convenient that this change in policy was revealed just in time to get Utah admitted to the Union (and what fine contributions it’s made as a state…the Osmonds and Orrin Hatch).
And yet, several countries have legalized some form of SSM in the last decade and God’s wrath has not manifested. Gay people have been forming non-legally recognized families for generations and no wrath. Gay people adopt children; no wrath. Domestic partnerships are in place in municipalities across the nation; no wrath. So much for God’s wrath. Bring it on, God.
Esprix wrote:
Note that I said a law that prohibited a practice that was not essential to salvation. If someone tried to pass a law that would take away people’s salvation, I’m sure the Mormons would fight it.
So 25 million people is not “many”?
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
How many mixed-sex couples marry for no other reason than it is legal? Here’s a hint: ZERO.
Otto, hey guy, I told you I didn’t want to argue this with you any more. You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder, and no matter what I say to you, you won’t listen to me–you’ll just pick it apart and expect me to pick up the pieces.
If you have legitimate questions about the LDS church, the missionaries are in the phone book under “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” If you’re just attacking my faith for the hell of it, I don’t want an argument. I should never have gotten involved in this topic, and I refuse to argue about it anymore. I shouldn’t even have answered Esprix just now. Like he (and I) said, there’s no point to arguing between ourselves because no one is going to change their opinion based on what the other says anyway.
Peace.
I’m sorry, you didn’t answer my question. I understand why you are against SSM’s, but I’m asking what the LDS reaction would be to the civil aspect of SSM’s if they were made legal.
And am I right in assuming that polygamy, then, is not a requirement for salvation? Was it ever?
[/QUOTE]
Flinx wrote: SSM being recognized legally is a danger because MANY more people will enter into such a relationship if it’s legal than if it isn’t.
Esprix wrote: No more than 10% of the population is “MANY?”
Flinx wrote: So 25 million people is not “many”?
[/QUOTE]
You assume that every single homosexual will enter into a same-sex marriage. By that logic, you still have 225 million heterosexuals engaged in opposite-sex marriages, so, comparatively, it’s really not many at all. (Again, I understand that even one SSM would be unacceptable to the Mormons.)
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Flinx, for the record, I’m not asking to be inflammatory or to try to change your position, I’m just unfamiliar with LDS teachings and am curious about their reactions to SSM’s, so I’m just seeking information, not bashing. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, tho.
Esprix
If you guys are interested in discussing Mormon beliefs, please start a thread in “General Questions” or “Great Debates.” That way other Mormons can join in. I feel rather overwhelmed by all the questions you guys have, and frankly, I don’t care for the title of this thread too much either. But no, polygamy is not essential for salvation.
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Good idea, and so done: http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001338.html
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
How exactly could an earthly law possibly take God-given salvation away from another person?
I was going over this thread in my mind last night and it occurred to me that this is a prime illustration of the dynamics of tribal thinking (or maybe “reacting” would be a better term, since there seems to be little real thinking going on by some parties.)
Those who are outside the tribe who want to be members because they know instinctively that it’s safer to be members of a tribe than to go it alone. (Safety in numbers if you are a member; it’s difficult to resist a large group if it turns against you.) Some want to be accepted exactly as they are, refusing to change, resistant to compromise. Others are willing, even desiring to change so they can be members and enjoy the benefits of membership, including, but not exclusively, financial, security and companionship. Still others want no part of the tribe because of its demonstrated hostility to those like themselves.
Some who are already members welcome newcomers with open arms believing that a larger tribe is more secure and prosperous than a small one. Also, they’d prefer that valuable time and resources not be wasted trying to rebuff a newcomer who may prove to be invaluable. Only after the newcomer is found wanting will this type of person either try to assist the newcomer in becoming a member or recommend that s/he be expelled. (Give them a chance to fail, on the assumption they will succeed.) This type is not threatened by change and, in fact, often welcomes it. (“America: Change it or Lose it.”)
Other members are more suspicious and are either appointed or set themselves up as guardians of the tribe who test the newcomers to see if they are worthy at the moment of application, rather than waiting. (Give them a chance to succeed, on the assumption they will fail.) The more paranoid of this type reject the newcomer on sight, believing the applicant MUST be an enemy trying to infiltrate and destroy his tribe from within. (One can destroy a tribe either physically or intellectually, with strange, new ideas and philosophies. Converting the young is an effective strategy.) This type is also lacking in self-esteem and covers it up with bluster. Or he’s trying to frighten away the newcomer with noise, if this fails, he resorts (sometimes quickly) to physical dissuasion. These types are threatened by change and often fight it. (“America: Love it or Leave it.”)
(Note that people in group 2) can become members of group 3) after change has come about. And vice versa.)
Comments?
><DARWIN>
_L___L
Otto wrote:
I dunno. Good point.
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Lawdy ain’t the SDMB turned queer lately?
Rousseau, where are you?
Marvinboomerdiamond, please stay there!
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.