November 11, 2009

Rules of Engagment

I just don't understand.

Going to the Temples of the church to ask for a fair, open and honest discussion with the leaders, while kissing and holding signs against the church.

I am referencing the kiss-ins at SLC and California.

Why would anyone want to talk to someone who is deliberately throwing mud at their face? (metaphorically)

Asking for the church to recognize gay rights and give some sort of olive branch to the gay community.

When that branch is offered (Anti-discrimination law the church supported in SLC) some are angry and upset the church is taking a stand and calling it a PR stunt? Had the church done nothing at all, some would be upset because they did nothing.

Can the church ever do right, short of supporting gay marriage in your eyes?

FYI- I'm done with all this Gay Rights vs. Church stuff for a while, Its like beating a dead horse, the gays will never be happy with anything the church does, and the church will never support gay marriage.


  1. The problem I have with this olive branch is that it's tainted. For example, I would have been OK if they had simply said "The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable [PERIOD}". Why did they feel a need to go on and say "and do not do violence to the institution of marriage"? Especially since he later reemphasized the church's stand on marriage by saying "the church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman." The statement about violence against marriage was simply uncalled for.

    I actually do support the church's stand against gay marriage - even while I personally support it. I just think we need to respect the belief's of others - as our 11th article of faith says we do. And, I don't think my membership in the church exempts me from having my personal belief's respected.

    We all know how the LDS church feels about gay marriage - why do they have to keep throwing it in our faces? Especially since the discussion at hand was about non-discrimination and had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.

    But, that's just my $0.02 - I know we're probably not going to come to any sort agreement on this. We can still be friends, right?

  2. Of course, please dont ever think that because I dont understand or hold contrary views I dislike you, or anyone.

    I understand your opinion, but I have a question.
    Had the church left out the part that they still were against gay marraige, wouldn't you think everyone would ask... "So does this change your gay marraige stance?"

    I THINK, it was put in there to just clarify that the marraige stance still stands even thought they support this law.

  3. Yay to burying old horse carcasses!

  4. This is quite interesting! A friend and I last year walked through temple square in SLC holding hands and even kissed watching all the lights and yes we are both guys.

  5. "the gays will never be happy with anything the church does"

    Now that sounds awfully sweeping. I don't think it's imprudent for gay rights advocates to be somewhat wary of the church's nascent political transition here. I know plenty of gay people who are very excited about this development. Some are cynical, yes. (Ironically, it seems to me that gay Mormons are acting more cautiously about this than my other gay friends.)

    As for me, I think it's highly important to give credit to the activists and government officials who worked to make this happen. The church's last-minute endorsement certainly helped, and was the upstanding choice to make. However, it was not instrumental in passing the new city ordinance. I only hope that it will provide enough momentum for state-wide legislation on these simple matters. We will keep discussing marriage for some time to come, but these employment, housing, and discrimination measures are no-brainers.

    My biggest concern is that this story is being painted as an "olive branch" from the church. It seems entirely one-sided. In fact, the good people at Equality Utah and other groups have been working tirelessly for years for the chance to meet with church leaders and engage in meaningful conversation. Their public stance with respect to the church in Utah has been lop-sidedly friendly for quite some time. They deserve credit for waiting so long for this to happen, and for being so temperate in the meantime. Their patience is admirable, and I hope to be as good a representative as they have been.

    I'm glad that this has happened. I think the church did the right thing. I am proud of them. I am excited about what this could possibly mean.

    I am also wary. Hopeful, but wary.

  6. I, like you, am hopeful. I see positive steps without cynicism. I hope for more to come.

    Thanks for your opinion.

  7. The thing that bothers me the most about this is that it reaks of the all or nothing mentality that most gay activist pursue. It's really pretty selfish.

    Honestly anyone who understand the basic doctrine of the church would realize that the church would be against anything that does infringe on anyone's temporal rights such as housing, education, and employment.

    Things that are eturnal or doctrinal are different. I don't see this as an olive branch or meeting half way. I see this as standing up for something that is fair and that is right.

    If the gay community doesn't like it, then too bad. I don't think we did it to make them like us or not like us. I think we did it because it's the right thing to do.

    I don't think the church had any motives other then the motivation to speak up and do the right thing.

  8. Oh yeah one more thing, I think my fav qoute in that video has to be the lady that asks Mormons to look past their mythology. Okay, and that's supposed to win friends among the Mormons?

    I think you are doing yourself a favor in ignoring this kinda stuff for a while. Lets move on to 2012! Oh wait maybe they could redo the film and show the destruction of the protesters in front of the temple and the temple could be spared. Okay yeah. Sorry.