I'm not relgiious at all, not politically motivated on this topic- but I would love your take on my post above. I think both sides need to be honest about this issue.

Why the Church of LDS (who helped fund Prop 8 to the tune of $20 million) has quietly pulled the plug on their public war against SSM.

http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/mo...ent?oid=2715504



Ivy: TRAITOR!!!!!!

If you actually read that article, it's headline, as well as what you posted, are both quite misleading. Where do I even begin?

First, Elder Jensen's response wasn't traitorous or inconsistent with the Church's stance on the issue. One one hand, the Church has and continues to maintain it's policy that homosexual behavior is a sin. However, gay members who abstain from it are in good standing. On the other hand, it has supported laws here in Utah that prohibit discrimination against gays in hiring, housing, etc. and even supported the change to allow gay scouts participate in scouting (though not gay leaders.) In short, it's doing what true Christians do - loving the sinner but not excusing or condoning the sin.

Second, change in the Church doesn't happen because of outside social issues. The Church follows divine revelation, not public opinion, polls, social trends, etc. So the article's claim that a "remarkable, if somewhat invisible, transformation" is happening within the Church, and that it's due to Prop 8, is simply not true; as much as the article's author may wish it was.

Third, notice how the headline is based on the supposition of an LGBT activist, who says "It seems like the hierarchy has pulled the plug and is no longer taking the lead in the fight to stop same-sex marriage." He then goes on to say, "The Mormon Church has lost so many members and suffered such a black eye because of all its anti-gay activities that they really had no choice." This guy is either delusional, ignorant, or just a liar. The members that have left the Church were relatively minimal. And it's simply a case of the wheat being separated from the chaff. These were members who never really had a testimony to begin with. They were believers only so long as the Church agreed with them. Indeed, they were more concerned about bringing the world into the Church than bringing the Gospel into the world. And past cases have shown that the Church doesn't shy away from excommunicating apostates like these anyway. So, for this guy to argue that the Church is changing because a relative few fell away, or because of some "black eye" in the media or whatever, is more wishful thinking than anything.

Fourth, what this writer calls a "cultural shift" shouldn't be mistaken in any way for a "doctrinal shift." The doctrine is based on eternal law and cannot change. The cultural shift, as she puts it, is simply reaching out to gay members and their families in love and understanding - but not excusing. And those members who believe the Church will eventually "come around" and change it's doctrine are only fooling themselves. After all, it's not up to the Church hierarchy in the first place.

Finally, as I've mentioned before, I'm in a good position to comment on all this because I'm Mormon and have two gay brothers. Contrary to what some of these apostate ex-members think, one doesn't need to "choose" between gay family and the Church. You can love them but still hold to what you know to be true. Them being gay is only a product of this fallen, mortal life and will be removed through the Atonement of Christ and their resurrection.

How the hell did you end up with two gay brothers (considering homosexuals are like 3% percent of population)? Did your dad have a questionable sexuality, considering its probably genetic in origin? Or are there just like 40 kids?

It's a little confusing. One is technically a former step-brother. But I grew up with him and still consider him my brother. He lives in Denmark now. He was born to my mom's second husband and his first wife. The other had the same father as the first one and the same mom as me. So, technically he's a half brother, but I look at him like a full brother. He lives here in Utah. Obviously the common denominator is them having the same dad but he's never had questionable sexuality. In fact, his womanizing was one reason my mom divorced him. So go figure. And, for the record, I have 1 full brother, 1 ex-step brother, 2 half brothers, and 1 adopted sister. Like I said, it's confusing.

Sen. Ted Cruz Issues Major Gay Marriage Warning for Pastors and Christians, Alike
Billy Hallowell
July 23, 2013


Supporters of traditional marriage often fear the free speech ramifications that could emerge as as result of increasing support for gay marriage in the United States. But are these worries really legitimate?

In an interview with CBN's David Brody, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, joined in this chorus, warning that the push in favor of same-sex unions could, indeed, put First Amendment protections at risk.

"If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that's the next step of where it gets enforced," he said of hate speech regulations that are in place in other countries.

"It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage and that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech -- as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government," Cruz added.

Some pro-gay marriage advocates in the U.S., the senator believes, want the nation to end up with the same ramifications on the books -- and in a paradigm in which individuals can be punished or denigrated for refusing to substantiate or for speaking out against same-sex unions.

Some might scoff at these insinuations, dismissing them as over-the-top, but Cruz is not necessarily manufacturing a paradigm. Consider the widely publicized case in Sweden back in 2005 surrounding Aake Green, a Pentecostal pastor.

Green's plight corroborates the worries that Cruz has surrounding America's current trajectory. In 2003, the preacher likened homosexuality to cancer during one of his sermons. As a result, he was brought up on charges over these claims -- statements that, in America, would currently be protected by the First Amendment.

The BBC has more about the case (in the end, Green won his appeal, although he was initially given 30 days in jail over his anti-gay comments):

Mr Green was convicted in June 2004 but allowed to remain free pending appeal.

He was the first clergyman convicted under Swedish laws that make incitement to hatred against racial, religious or national groups illegal - legislation that was amended in 2003 to include homosexuals.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee June 19, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller confirmed that the FBI uses drones for domestic surveillance during the hearing on FBI oversight. Credit: Getty Images

Other incidents have unfolded, too, as the delicate balance between free speech and cutting down on hate speech has been sought.

Now, some might argue that Green's words were too harsh, but one wonders if even simpler, kinder words that stand opposed to homosexuality would be met with similar sentiment in his country.

While it's certainly permissible to disagree with Cruz's assessment, the basis on which he argues is not entirely unfounded.

http://news.yahoo.com/sen-ted-cruz-issues-major-gay-marriage-warning-171417531.html

Ivy I don't agree with you on your views on gay marriage. But I would fight for your right to speak your mind about it

some decent points being made in that article. look no further than this board: referring to a black person as black is racist. citing crime stats of a particular ethnic group is racist. basically, voicing any unpopular opinion with regards to race or gender is racist/sexist. heh.