Church's Statement on California Court Decision

[Colly Wolly]

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Today's California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate."

[scottie]

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why the Church decided it needed to make a statement? Is it worried some members will now enter into gay marriages in California?

[Colly Wolly]

I suppose they'll have to change the temple language that defines the law of chastity. That whole part about no sexual relations except with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by scottie

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why the Church decided it needed to make a statement? Is it worried some members will now enter into gay marriages in California?

I think it is just doing what any politically neutral organization would do....issue a prepared statement expressing regret over a state Supreme Court decision, thereby subtly prompting its constituents to oppose any future changes in existing state law.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I think it is just doing what any politically neutral organization would do....issue a prepared statement expressing regret over a state Supreme Court decision, thereby subtly prompting its constituents to oppose any future changes in existing state law.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion?

First of all, the Church is NOT politically neutral when it comes to gay marriage. Living in California, you should know that. The Church came out in full force supporting the defense of marriage proposition a few years ago. The very proposition the court ruled unconstitutional today.

Second, how is this prompting members to oppose any future changes in existing state law?

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by scottie

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why the Church decided it needed to make a statement? Is it worried some members will now enter into gay marriages in California?

I don't see how the Church could not respond. After the way the directive came straight from SLC to the California members to support the marriage proposition a few years ago.

Also, if the "Proclamation" is really supposed to carry the weight, and importance we have been told, the Church probably sees the need to make this statement to support the Proclamation.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by scottie

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why the Church decided it needed to make a statement? Is it worried some members will now enter into gay marriages in California?

I think this explains it.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...der-attraction

[BYUTexan]

I have never supported gay marriage, but having had a gay older brother, I look at gays a lot differently than those in the church that haven't had such an experience.

Personally, I don't believe same gender attraction in men is a choice, but a medical issue (no I don't believe they were selected by mother nature), that something went wrong hormonally in the development process.

My older brother went inactive around the age of 13, because he feared that if the bishop ever found out that he was gay, he'd be exed, as he knew the current attitudes towards gay people in the church. My mother observed his same attraction when he was a little boy and didn't quite piece it together until he came out of the closet at age 16 (we weren't surprised as we could all tell).

While I don't believe that gays and s should be able to take upon them the title of husband and wife, I do feel that they should be able to live together, put each other as beneficiaries in insurance and inheritance cases, hold joint bank accounts and even jointly own a mortgage.

While the homophobia is rampant in our culture, I am not afraid of gay and people, as I view them as my brothers and sisters and feel badly for much of their plight in mortality.

On a side note: I even have a Lezbian(darn filter) sister in my ward (she physically looks alot like a man in the face and has a stockier build than most normal women.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by BYUTexan

Personally, I don't believe same attraction in men is a choice, but a medical issue (no I don't believe they were selected by mother nature), that something went wrong hormonally in the development process.

After reading the page I linked to the Church web site, it appears the Church's position is that the origin of same sex attraction is irrelevant. Everyone has feelings, impulses, desires, etc. to do things or behave in ways that are sinful. This does not mean one must act upon these feelings or desires. They point out that it is contrary to God's laws that man would be tempted or born with feelings so strong to act in such a way that he could not withstand them, and turn away from the sinful act.

If I as a straight man feel the urge and desire to bang every hot woman I see, because I was "born that way" it doesn't justify acting upon those feelings and urges.

This is definitely a complicated topic.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

After reading the page I linked to the Church web site, it appears the Church's position is that the origin of same sex attraction is irrelevant. Everyone has feelings, impulses, desires, etc. to do things or behave in ways that are sinful. This does not mean one must act upon these feelings or desires. They point out that it is contrary to God's laws that man would be tempted or born with feelings so strong to act in such a way that he could not withstand them, and turn away from the sinful act.

If I as a straight man feel the urge and desire to bang every hot woman I see, because I was "born that way" it doesn't justify acting upon those feelings and urges.

This is definitely a complicated topic.

You are definitely classic, NorCal. Unfortunately, unlike most classics, you are still in operation.