What to you is the most important issue right now?

Pt314 · Senior Member

What to you is the most important issue right now?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

War on Terror #1

Same sex marriage is a close #2

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I said "Other", because I think most of these issues are, from a political perspective, red herrings. The war on terror is real, but not the most important thing affecting us. The issue of same sex marriage is real too, but not likely to be a major issue again until it becomes one. Illegal immigration is real in the peoples minds, but definitely low on politicians agendas other than from a rallying cry, otherwise there would be more action being done now on it. Education, abortion, shrinking government / taxes, and social program fixing are the traditional rally points, but are kind of tired right now.

By selecting other, I think the most important things are actually about our economy as a whole in all states (Michigan currently has the highest unemployment in the nation, from what I've heard, and from real evidence in my ward, it isn't just the blue collar factory workers... it is white collar management as well) and putting some brakes to the seemingly one sided exportation of jobs and industries out of the US.

For all the work at stabilizing things and all the talk, I think we as a nation are still kind of on autopilot trying to figure out what makes a good economy after the false bubble of the Clinton era economy was shattered by 9-11. I don't know of any foreign trade agreements where we end up on the winning end of the stick. It is all about consumerism and spending and increasing debt. And, the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to counter inflation... But the thing is, there is no incentive being made to save. Consumers are not getting any greater interest if they opt to save money in the bank. Macro economics are not working they way they should because of the banking system. And I'll shut up now, because I really have no idea what I'm talking about.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I think the War on Terror and Illegal Immigration are the same issue. They both fall under securing this nation. As for the economy, it just depends on how you define strength of the economy. Is it the stock market or is it employment. As you pointed out Cat your area is struggling with unemployment. Our's is doing really good with the lowest unemployment we have seen in decades. During the Clinton years we had 13%+ unemployment rates here. We were suffering under a horrible economy while some places were having a grand time. I worry that a lot of the economic growth was being fueled by the relestate market. The folks were refinancing every few years and puting their credit card debt on the refinance. This was repeated over and over until the interest rates got high, the housing market slowed, and here comes the pain. I think a good portion of this current market is driven by consumer debt. Very scary!

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Agreed, Jason. It was interesting that after 9/11, our administration was telling citizens to go out and spend--buy a new car, etc. to help the economy stay afloat. At the same time, Pres. Hinckley was telling us (and had been telling us for years, and is still telling us) to get out of debt, stay out of debt, and establish an emergency fund--to live within our means. Hmmm....I wonder which is inspired counsel?

As for the most important issue: Shrinking the size of government / taxes. It doesn't matter what party you're from or what promises you make about taxes, if you're going to grow the government, you gotta pay for it--raise taxes, or borrow the money and let our children pay off the interest.

Unfortunately, there are only a few candidates talking about that issue this year, and they all seem to be from one party.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm going with the defense of Marriage, mostly because if our society is to survive, it must do so on the strengths and personal righteousness of its members... and well... I think we need to say marriage is important to society.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

I'm going with the defense of Marriage, mostly because if our society is to survive, it must do so on the strengths and personal righteousness of its members... and well... I think we need to say marriage is important to society.

--Ray

That's pretty much my view. We can withstand any external enemy if we are moral and follow the laws of God. But if we are immoral, there's nothing that's going to save us against the terrorists.

Pt314 · Senior Member

At the moment I think securing the nation, and fighting the war on terrorism is the most pressing matter for the country.

Defending marriage is extremely important, I want to live in a moral society.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

hear! hear!

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Right now, SSM is on the back burner, somewhat. But I believe it will be a huge longterm issue. And I think we ignore it to our peril.

arbilad · Head Chef

bokbadok wrote:

Right now, SSM is on the back burner, somewhat. But I believe it will be a huge longterm issue. And I think we ignore it to our peril.

You're right, bok. We ignore it at our own peril because the homosexuals are always looking for the chinks in the armor of marriage so that they can attack it.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Order of importance: From this Arizonan's view.

Same-Sex Marriage/Abortion
Illegal Immigration
The War on Terror
Education
Shinking The Size of Government / Taxes
Fixing Social Programs

When folks think there is nothing wrong with homosexuals playing house or nothing wrong with a mother killing her child, our society is in a quick downward spiral.

Unless we secure our borders, the tidal wave of illegal immigration will not only overwhelm us, it will destroy our way of life as we know it.

Fight the enemy in their territory.

Get our people educated so that we can be competetive in a global economy.

Stop spending money to spend money.... congress has become drunk with social spending and an oversized bureaucracy.

There you have it.

Vote for Mitt

ctr

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Take away the federal government's unconstitutional ability to recognize and regulate marriage, give that authority back to the churches and communities where it should be, and then the same-sex marriage issue goes away. If two citizens want to enter into a contract with each other, that's their business. The government should only get involved to enforce the contract in case of breach, and to prohibit direct harm to other citizens.

Maybe I'm naive here. Can anyone explain what benefits we, as citizens, receive by having the federal government define, recognize, and regulate marriage? And why that issue would be the most important political issue?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Just a gut reaction here (which I know is frowned upon, but I don't have the time to do more just now). Maybe I'll have time later to research out a well written article that says better what I think:

If you believe that government should get out of the business of promoting health and welfare, then yes, marriage should cease being promoted and regulated by government. But then it seems to me that so also should immunizations, education, disease control & research, nutrition, drug testing & approval, food labeling, domestic violence/child abuse, adoption, crime, illicit drugs, and a host of other things that promote health and well being of individuals.

Maybe our lives would be better if government had never gotten involved in all those things. I'm open to consider that. But the fact that government is involved in monitoring and promoting health and well being of its citizens seems to preclude withdrawing support for only one thing that promotes health: the basic institution of civilization.

Unfortunately, by making divorce so easy to come by, government promotes marriage only superficially. Our society is already reaping the community decay resulting from over three decades of deteriorating morality and rejection of traditional gender roles (i.e. marriage). Perhaps Roper has a point: if government isn't going to fully support marriage, it should get out of the business altogether. Whatever happens, I fear that it is already too late. When the traditional family, as a desirable social goal, is utterly abandoned, I fear that life as we know it will go with it.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I think you are on to something there, Bok. I agree, government's current hand in marriage promotion/regulation is necessary because of its role in other areas such as health and welfare. Think of all the ramifications of having marriage becoming even less important. Marriage does a lot for children, health and well being. Once you give government control it is hard to get it back so I don't see things changing anytime soon.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

The problem I see with the whole affair (pun intended) with government in marriage is not its weakening but that factions within this government are openly hostile to it. This hasn't happened to marriage due to a sophisticated libertarian ideal--it's delusional to think that's the case. That's simply an excuse to mullify the masses. There are factions at work that are openly hostile to marriage--"so that they can more easily commit whoredoms"--as the scriptures put it.

When it is no longer recognized as a thing of merit in society, it will not just stop there. It will then become a thing to be punished--no doubt for the common good. There are many factions that see this as a benefit. Those who've been wounded by divorce, those who see traditional families as social relics, those who see traditional families as something they can never have so why should anyone else, those who see children as victims of their parents, those who see religion as a corrupting influence in society, those who see religion as something that needs to be eliminated.

Gay marriage and divorce aren't attempts to make things fair, for many they're salvos in an open war against what many see as a obsolete way of life.

The question is whether we will fight back... or will continue to yield the battlefield.

--Ray

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I agree with that Ray.

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper, my problem with gay marriage is not really that they'd get tax breaks. My problem with it is that it would be considered to be equal to real marriage. Therefore, if government was out of the marriage business, overnight would happen exactly what I fear - actual marriage would have the same status as homosexual marriage. So, by getting government out of the marriage business, in one fell swoop exactly what I least want would happen.

DaKnife · Senior Member

Based on my current profession, the War on Terror is most important to me.
Okay so I'm a late come to many of these threads, but without Nauvoo I have to find somewhere to post.

palmon · Senior Member

What bokbadoh said.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

The government should always legislate against and enforce laws against those actions that harm citizens. Likewise, the government should engage in those actions which promote the general welfare, many of which Bok mentioned. Promoting the general welfare almost always means destroying individual liberty, so that's a delicate balancing act.

Government regulation of marriage may in some ways promote the general welfare. It also means that marriage, which is ordained by God, can be unduly influenced and controlled by authority that is not divine. And frankly, our government does nothing to protect the contract of marriage. I believe marriage could be much better promoted and protected under the authority of the Church.

If we continue to insist that the federal government regulate marriage, we will eventually get a government-defined definition of marriage which includes homosexuality and which will be enforceable. It will happen for the exact reasons that Ray stated--factions that are openly hostile toward marriage will manipulate it. I have no faith in the government to protect marriage. I have every reason to believe the government will directly attack and redefine marriage as long as the government has control.

I believe homosexual practices are sinful, just as adultery and fornication are sinful. But when two consenting adults engage in them, where is the harm to other citizens? To legislate against them would be an unconstitutional denial of personal liberty. Our resources would be much better spent legislating against those who publish pornography, which has been scientifically proven to cause direct harm to citizens.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Were it solely about a sex act, I'd agree with you Roper. But marriage is more than that, and it is a NECESSARY component of a civil society. It is worth fighting for.

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I passionately agree. But we're fighting on the wrong front. We will lose to the gay rights agenda. It's only a matter of time.

Marriage should be the prerogative of the Church, where it can be defined by God and protected as religious practice. As long as the government gets to regulate marriage, it will continue to be weakened until it means nothing more than a box to check on my income tax return and a few extra dollars back from the gubment.

I'd rather not let the government define marriage for me, thank you very much. Because in a few years, I will have to accept the legal definition that includes homosexual unions. The next step is that I will be required to acknowledge and support it in my classroom.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

This assault on marriage is an attempt to marginalize religion. If we don't stand up for basic civic institutions that support religion, we can only expect that our religion will be the next to suffer. We must keep it a central issue, or else the next fight will be in our own congregations. We must appeal to people on every level, and explain the consequences.

How do you convert a people to the idea of eternal families, when the society they live in has convinced them that family is defined merely as two people who at any time decide to slake each other's lusts with an act of abusive sexuality?

--Ray

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Roper wrote:

I believe homosexual practices are sinful, just as adultery and fornication are sinful. But when two consenting adults engage in them, where is the harm to other citizens?

Be careful, that is the same argument used against laws regulating drugs, prostitution, porn, and gambling. All of which involve consenting adults but I can make the case that all of them harm other citizens and society at large. Just like homosexual practices and gay marriage would. One of the adversary's big lies is that my behavior and decisions only affect me so it should be allowed to do whatever I want and you shouldn't judge me. Unfortunately, the consequences of our decisions don't just affect us. They affect our families, our neighbors, our communities, our nation, and future generations. The BOM is a prime example of where the decisions of a few were felt generations later.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

The BOM is a prime example of where the decisions of a few were felt generations later.Not just generations later, but often in a decade or less. And we have more contemporary examples we can pull from, if we're willing to understand 20th century history.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:

How do you convert a people to the idea of eternal families, when the society they live in has convinced them that family is defined merely as two people who at any time decide to slake each other's lusts with an act of abusive sexuality?

--Ray

Well first of all, that's making the assumption that homosexual people form relationships solely for the purpose of satisfying sexual lusts--the same assumption that people erroneously made about Mormons who practiced polygamy.

Second: I don't believe the government should ever have the power to uniformly define what does and does not constitute "family." Once again, that's the role of the Church and communities, not the federal government.

Third: Conversion to the idea of Eternal Families will happen through the witness of the Holy Ghost, as the truth is learned. Again, I don't think the federal government can or should provide definitions of marriage and family toward that end. The ones we have now, in my opinion, do more harm than good in helping citizens to understand the truth about marriage and family. Have you ever seen the definition of family used by social workers or used by public education? In an effort to be inclusive, those definitions have become meaningless.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Roper,

Did you forget this line from The Proclamation on the Family?

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

It is the role of government.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

salesortonscom wrote:

Roper wrote:

I believe homosexual practices are sinful, just as adultery and fornication are sinful. But when two consenting adults engage in them, where is the harm to other citizens?

Be careful, that is the same argument used against laws regulating drugs, prostitution, porn, and gambling. All of which involve consenting adults but I can make the case that all of them harm other citizens and society at large. Just like homosexual practices and gay marriage would. One of the adversary's big lies is that my behavior and decisions only affect me so it should be allowed to do whatever I want and you shouldn't judge me. Unfortunately, the consequences of our decisions don't just affect us. They affect our families, our neighbors, our communities, our nation, and future generations. The BOM is a prime example of where the decisions of a few were felt generations later.

We have scientifice evidence to support your statements: When citizens abuse drugs, they harm others. In the very least, fatalities attributed to aclohol abuse support that. We have evidence that the distribution of pornography harms citizens. I think the case is a little harder to make for prostitution and gambling, but I'll agree that the potential is there to harm other citizens.

How do two homosexual adults involved in a relationship harm other citizens? Apart from an understanding that it's an evil practice and therefore should be avoided? We can't fight the battle on those grounds.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Mahonri wrote:

Roper,

Did you forget this line from The Proclamation on the Family?

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

It is the role of government.

Didn't forget it--absolutely support it! And the best way for responsbile citizens and officers of government to maintain and strengthen the family is to support measures designed to get the State out of the business of defining marriage and family relationships. Give that authority back to the Church (where it originated) who will do a much better job.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Well first of all, that's making the assumption that homosexual people form relationships solely for the purpose of satisfying sexual lusts--the same assumption that people erroneously made about Mormons who practiced polygamy.

Actually I didn't make this assumption. This is the basis for the law.

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

To which law are you referring? Are you referring to sodomy laws which were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003 as unconstitutional?

arbilad · Head Chef

Roper wrote:

salesortonscom wrote:

Roper wrote:

I believe homosexual practices are sinful, just as adultery and fornication are sinful. But when two consenting adults engage in them, where is the harm to other citizens?

Be careful, that is the same argument used against laws regulating drugs, prostitution, porn, and gambling. All of which involve consenting adults but I can make the case that all of them harm other citizens and society at large. Just like homosexual practices and gay marriage would. One of the adversary's big lies is that my behavior and decisions only affect me so it should be allowed to do whatever I want and you shouldn't judge me. Unfortunately, the consequences of our decisions don't just affect us. They affect our families, our neighbors, our communities, our nation, and future generations. The BOM is a prime example of where the decisions of a few were felt generations later.

We have scientifice evidence to support your statements: When citizens abuse drugs, they harm others. In the very least, fatalities attributed to aclohol abuse support that. We have evidence that the distribution of pornography harms citizens. I think the case is a little harder to make for prostitution and gambling, but I'll agree that the potential is there to harm other citizens.

How do two homosexual adults involved in a relationship harm other citizens? Apart from an understanding that it's an evil practice and therefore should be avoided? We can't fight the battle on those grounds.

Roper, since marriage and families are the basis of civilization, any corruption of that is an attack on civilization. Let me put it to you this way: what if, instead of skilled radar operators in an AWACS, you had 15th century cobblers? The AWACS would be entirely unable to fulfill its mission of early warning. It's the same thing with homosexual marriage. It's not only destructive to the people involved in it. It is actively destructive to society. To take one example of many: do you think that, even for a second, the homosexual lobby would agree to a bill authorizing homosexual marriage but making it illegal to raise kids in such a "marriage"? Of course not. And that means that kids would be raised having, as examples, parents who are engaged in abominable sin, who teach them a corrupt world view, and who will have nothing against, and in certain cases encourage, them engaging in such a sinful lifestyle themselves.

And the moment government gets out of the marriage business, the homosexual lobby gets basically everything they wanted from homosexual marriage.

Even if it's a losing battle, it's worth fighting.

Dyany · Senior Member

I remember learning in college (I guess some conservative ideas got through :) ) that sexual crimes are FAR more prevalent from people who choose 'alternative' lifestyles such as homosexuality. I doubt that would ever come up in these arguments though -- in fact, I would bet that to even perform such a study today would be frowned upon.

arbilad · Head Chef

Dyany wrote:

I remember learning in college (I guess some conservative ideas got through :) ) that sexual crimes are FAR more prevalent from people who choose 'alternative' lifestyles such as homosexuality. I doubt that would ever come up in these arguments though -- in fact, I would bet that to even perform such a study today would be frowned upon.

I have heard that as well. But if you say so nowadays you will get shouted down.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

I voted for other because I too think the SSM war is nearly the closest thing the adversary can get to a smoke screen without making it look like a smoke screen. For my family it's really about the disintegration of the family in general... Divorce, as bok pointed out is a huge part of it... but we (as a society) are selling ourselves out for "things"... Men AND women spend too much time trying to buy bigger and better houses, cars, and vacations, to their own demise...

From what we see here in small town AZ... too many grandparents are raising children, because too many parents are too selfish to do it. After teenagers attempt parenthood too early and fail they often unload their children willingly or unwillingly on the grandparents in order to participate in drugs, filthy pursuits and sinful, selfish atrocities in many many cases. It is appalling to me to hear the stories of some of the kids my children go to school with, no wonder they reach out to garbage, they live in the middle of it... Yes some good kids get pulled into sin while trying to manage through this world, despite wonderful helpful parents... But in too many cases people are embracing these sinful lives and dragging their children in with them... Not just SS couples... some of the members of my own ward are caught in the same traps and buy into the same stupid ideas and there are sometimes 2 parents of different sex in these sad excuses for a family life that I hear about from my children's friends...

IMO, it wasn't an "accident" that the Proclamation on the Family was released when it was. It merely warned the rest of the the world what the leaders of the Church have been warning members of for generations. Many of us (I don't necessarily mean members of this board...) still don't accept our own responsibility in the lives of those we SAY we love the most. How many mothers and/or fathers that YOU personally know are abandoning their children to their own devises... We are afraid to say it like it is... We are afraid of offending when we should be MORE afraid of losing our own souls...

I have been looking internally lately... and I have concluded that if you aren't figuring out for yourself what is wrong in your own family and working on rectifying it, no matter what we do to help with society we will loose our children AND our birthright!

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:
Consumers are not getting any greater interest if they opt to save money in the bank. Macro economics are not working they way they should because of the banking system.

The economic interest doesn't have to be visable... I can tell you from the standpoint of someone that is nearly debt free that having enough money to pay my bills in full BEFORE they are due each month and a years supply is worth MORE to me than any interst rate. If you SAVE $50 every month you will still have $50 at the end of that month... Soon I won't even have to worry about a modest car and houe payment, and I don't plan to put all my eggs in any one basket, except the Lord's basket... so far he has done a pretty good job helping us take care of our needs despite job losses and changes in careers.

I don't count on government to save me, cause they can't even save themselves... My opinion isn't about politics... in fact I don't even particularly pay attention to the government promises... I DO however follow the prophet, as the Lord's mouthpiece when he says... "do it".

It brings great peace of mind. That you CAN bank on, and no reversal of fortune or bank crash can demolish that kind of peace.

arbilad · Head Chef

PollyAnna, I view the whole SSM as just a more advanced symptom of the breakdown of the family. They're not really separate issues to me. There would be no question of whether or not to let homosexuals "marry" each other if families in our society were generally strong. But when you even have television shows glorifying cheating on your spouse, for instance, what can you expect?

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

I agree Arbi... In my workplace I am considered something of a strange-duck... I don't have too many "habits" (I am slightly addicted to ruby red grapefruit and I get regular manicures and pedicures...) Hubby and I have been married to only one spouse each and we regularly adopt all kinds of stray kids (friends of our natural children) that we seem to be able to reach out to, without being sucked into their destructive lifestyles...

Our kids also seem to have special talents for seeing through the murk of their friends' lives and have the ability to help, but not buy into their self-destruct modes... often these adopted brothers and sisters have turn their lives around and move on to become wonderful adults, some of them still stop by...

Unfortunately some of these unofficially adopted children haven't pulled away from the lure of "free love" and casual relationships and they pay the consequences, which is not only painful for them at times it is heart wrenching for loved ones to witness... That doesn't mean we don't keep loving and praying for them them... but we can't "fix" their lives for them... That is up to them and the Savior.

If I could do one thing, it would be to help more children feel the Father's love... So many close their hearts to that source of healing water. That is one of the things I "hear" during conference... ALL those wonderful leaders, men and women of great faith and hearts of gold are trying to help us FEEL the Savior and the Father's love...

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I selected "other."

I think many others have posted sentiments that relate closely to what I am feeling. I have a sinking feeling about the righteousness of the country as a whole, as if it were "rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell" (thank you Merle Haggard).

I feel as if we are a country that was formerly "good," and therefore was made great by the grace of God. Nothing we can do can restore that former greatness untill we once again are "good," and we are moving further away from "good."

We're more impressed by "bling," and putting ourselves in ridiculous financial bondage to obtain the appearance of "bling" than we are about serving God and serving our fellow man. This evil and prideful attitude (at least where I live) is just as prevalent (if not moreso) among the saints as it is in the world at large.

Many of us here have expressed concerns about illegal immigration. Perhaps that is just the beginning of this country being swept clean and given to another group of people which has not yet proved itself unworthy of the divine providence we have repeatedly received here.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Hoss Cartwright wrote:
more impressed by "bling," and putting ourselves in ridiculous financial bondage to obtain the appearance of "bling" than we are about serving God and serving our fellow man.

Okay... I know this is going to make me look stupid, but before you all laugh please remember I live in smalltown AZ, and I am "sheltered"...

Just WHAT pray tell is "bling"?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Bling is what you need when you Frashizzle your Nizzle. Usually it is most noticeable when you see someone drinking Crystal and sporting Grillz.

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 16:48, 2007-04-30

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Okay... did I leave the USA??? confused

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Dyany wrote:

I remember learning in college (I guess some conservative ideas got through :) ) that sexual crimes are FAR more prevalent from people who choose 'alternative' lifestyles such as homosexuality. I doubt that would ever come up in these arguments though -- in fact, I would bet that to even perform such a study today would be frowned upon.

It really does depend upon how one defines a "sex crime."

Until very recently, sexual relations of ANY kind between homosexuals were defined as a "sex crime" in most jurisdictions. Those unenforceable laws are still on the books in Utah and other places. Recent supreme court decisions have made these laws unenforceable, but nevertheless, actions which in any other context would be perfectly legal were defined as illegal, and thus bump up the statistics for "sex crimes."

IOW, rape is probably no more common among homosexuals than among the population at large.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Sorry, Pollyanna. "Bling" is a word the youngsters use to refer to what we oldsters used to call "things of this world." biggrin

"shiny" things of this world.

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 09:32, 2007-05-01

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 10:19, 2007-05-01

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:
You're right, bok. We ignore it at our own peril because the homosexuals are always looking for the chinks in the armor of marriage so that they can attack it.

Arbilad, I am struggling to find a polite way to say this, but I can't, because I'm a jerk . But, do you realize how ignorant this attitude is?

First of all, even when we are in our most spiritual church meetings, we are in the presences of homosexuals. In temple sessions, they are with us. Some of them are making some very important comments that add to the lesson. Some of them bring a spirituality with them which improves the spirit of the temple session.

Some of us can be trusted with the knowledge of who they are. Some of us cannot. In high school, I could not be trusted with that knowledge. Many years later, when two of my best friends finally came out to me, I made a pledge to ALWAYS be a trusted person to homosexuals. And for this attitude, I have many friends who trust me with that knowledge, now.

They are not running around trying to find chinks in the armor of marriage.

They are struggling to find a place in a world which defines their feelings as sex crimes, and in a church which includes ignorant members who define them as people trying to assault the very foundations of society.

Neither of which are correct.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Great comment, Hoss. I agree that there are many wonderful men and women who struggle with same sex attraction. No doubt there are some on this board who regularly contribute. I think sometimes when we discuss this topic we engage in verbal short-hand that comes across as insensitive and unyielding.

Sadly however, the political push for gay marriage IS a reality, led by men and women who have no qualms openly attacking religion. Furthermore, they who are so politically minded often have no qualms about dismantling the institution of marriage. This was proven to me last legislative session when homosexual activists introduced legislation into the Washington state senate that would automatically annul any marriage between heterosexuals who did not produce a child within three years of the marriage. Their intent was to make a political point, but in so doing they demonstrated sheer contempt for the whole concept of marriage that they claimed was about a loving relationship.

Acting out on homosexual urges is still sinful, because there is no such thing as homosexual marriage, and I don't believe there will be such a thing, though should the prophets suddenly reveal it is possible I would find the revelation to be quite wonderful. As members we've been encouraged to defend the traditional definition of marriage and to look to the Plan of Salvation with faith and hope that all these exceptions to the rule that we see in mortality and this fallen world, will be lovingly healed in the eternities.

However, I think it is folly to perpetuate the hope that that will mean living in eternal increase with someone of your own gender, seeing as how gender is a premortal characteristic (see Proclamation of Family) and what we know about the New and Everlasting Covenant--I just don't see the scriptures supporting that outcome. But hey! I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong, cuz well... it wouldn't be the first time.

I guess my question for you would be how do you defend traditional marriage to your homosexual confidantes?

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Hoss Cartwright wrote:

arbilad wrote:
You're right, bok. We ignore it at our own peril because the homosexuals are always looking for the chinks in the armor of marriage so that they can attack it.

Arbilad, I am struggling to find a polite way to say this, but I can't, because I'm a jerk . But, do you realize how ignorant this attitude is?

First of all, even when we are in our most spiritual church meetings, we are in the presences of homosexuals. In temple sessions, they are with us. Some of them are making some very important comments that add to the lesson. Some of them bring a spirituality with them which improves the spirit of the temple session.

Some of us can be trusted with the knowledge of who they are. Some of us cannot. In high school, I could not be trusted with that knowledge. Many years later, when two of my best friends finally came out to me, I made a pledge to ALWAYS be a trusted person to homosexuals. And for this attitude, I have many friends who trust me with that knowledge, now.

They are not running around trying to find chinks in the armor of marriage.

They are struggling to find a place in a world which defines their feelings as sex crimes, and in a church which includes ignorant members who define them as people trying to assault the very foundations of society.

Neither of which are correct.

Hoss, is it ignorance to pay attention to the facts? Homosexuals distribute videos to schools teaching that homosexual relationships are just as good and natural as heterosexual ones. They actively push for homosexual marriage through legislative and judicial methods. They publish books for distribution to small kids portraying homosexual "marriage" as normal. Those are all undisputed facts. And those are also blatant attacks on marriage which, I may remind you, the Prophet of God, in a Proclamation to the World, has defined as being between a man and a woman.

Please forgive me my verbal shorthand, by the way. Not every practicing homosexual has done those things I mention. But as a group, it is a very common thing.

Are there people all around who suffer from same sex attraction? I'm sure there are more than is apparent. But I do take issue with anyone who defines themselves as a homosexual. Defining yourself by a sinful lifestyle is indicative of the person's attitude towards God's morality. There is no way to define yourself as a homosexual and still take a middle ground in the war versus good and evil. Actually, there is no middle ground.

Is a person who suffers from SSA doing something bad? Only if they act on it. We all have our own particular weaknesses, and we should not be judged by them. But, since we will not be tried above that which we are able to resist, I think it is fair to say that someone who gives in to SSA is doing something bad. Having been given the trial doesn't mean that you need to give in.

I think it is greater ignorance to ignore the reality of the actions of a certain group out of a love for individuals who have associated themselves with that group.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

rayb wrote:
I guess my question for you would be how do you defend traditional marriage to your homosexual confidantes?

--Ray

I don't?

I support homosexuals being able to marry civily, if they want to.

My opinion on government-sanctioned marriages is that any two unrelated adults (over the age of 18) should be able to enter into a marriage. I pretty much have no problem with polygamous marriages, as long as all participants are over the age of 18.

I absolutely defend the right of religious organizations to determine what they will (and will NOT) accept and sanction within their religious rites. And religions should not be referred to as "anything-phobic" for the decisions they make to best care for their flocks.

Frankly, this likely puts me at odds with church teachings.

I support the institutions of the family and marriage by trying to encourage people (and myself) to live a Christlike life and treat those around us in a manner which would please the Savior.

When men in my presence start dissing on their wives, or ogling or (horrors!) catcalling women they are not married to, I do my best to express my disdain for such actions. Heterosexuals have done, are doing, and will likely continue to do more damage to the institutions of marriage and the family than homosexuals or activist judges could ever do.

If "normal" couples were living up to their vows, we wouldn't be talking about the disintegration of the family in any way, shape, or form.

And casting aspersions on "those evil homosexuals" because we straight folks can't get our relationship crap in a pile, is just beyond ridiculous.

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 10:50, 2007-05-01

arbilad · Head Chef

Hoss, this is a free country and you are free to hold those opinions. But as a condition of membership on this board you agreed to abide by the rules. Here is one of those rules:
2. We do not speak out against the church leaders, the church doctrine, the church practices, etc. We start from the assumption that everyone agrees with church doctrine as set forth in ancient and modern revelation.Our modern prophet has revealed that marriage is between a man and a woman. We will not be debating that here. The closest you could get would be debating whether homosexual "marriage" is much of a threat to society. You have plenty of venues for debating lds doctrine open to you (although personally I don't think debating what the Lord has said is a very good idea).
Unless Cat finds himself unable to moderate this, I will not be taking any official action such as editing comments. But I will request that such action be taken.