"Okay it takes a village to raise a child, not the Village People" ----Vancome Lady
Posted on 10/12/2014 8:17:29 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“So will Adam and Steve also be able to marry Chad and Bruce?”
Probably Warren Jeffs.
Now Heather can have not only 2 mommies, but also 5 daddies. Heck, now she can have a whole village to raise her.
no church can ever endorse homosexuality, never going to happen.
the word of God is pretty clear on this issue.
The Church issued this statement the day the Supreme Court had their indecision, and the snowball effect it caused.
“SALT LAKE CITY —
The succession of federal court decisions in recent months, culminating in today’s announcement by the Supreme Court, will have no effect on the doctrinal position or practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is that only marriage between a man and a woman is acceptable to God. In prizing freedom of conscience and Constitutional guarantees of the free exercise of religion, we will continue to teach that standard and uphold it in our religious practices.
Nevertheless, respectful coexistence is possible with those with differing values. As far as the civil law is concerned, the courts have spoken. Church leaders will continue to encourage our people to be persons of good will toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or non-belief, and differences in sexual orientation.”
Catholic: “I wear briefs for support.”
Baptist: “I wear boxers for comfort.”
Mormon: “Hey! How about those Royals?”
Haven’t Episcopalians already don that?
don = done
"Like the Savior, His followers are sometimes confronted by sinful behavior, and today when they hold out for right and wrong as they understand it, they are sometimes called “bigots” or “fanatics.” Many worldly values and practices pose such challenges to Latter-day Saints. Prominent among these today is the strong tide that is legalizing same-sex marriage in many states and provinces in the United States and Canada and many other countries in the world. "…
"...Even as we seek to be meek and to avoid contention, we must not compromise or dilute our commitment to the truths we understand. We must not surrender our positions or our values. The gospel of Jesus Christ and the covenants we have made inevitably cast us as combatants in the eternal contest between truth and error. There is no middle ground in that contest."
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng
And this may be the crux of the issue going forward.
It seems clear that homosexual marriage is here to stay in our civil laws, and will be imposed on all 50 states eventually.
But will churches be sued over not participating in homosexual marriage, in their doctrines not allowing same, in their doctrines calling it sinful behavior?
I hope that the liberals don’t start suing churches over the issue of homosexual marriage. I see no need for them to do so, because most liberals are irreligious, and if they adhere to their own standards of tolerance and live and let live, this should be a non-issue to them.
>>>Heck, now she can have a whole village to raise her.
Sounds familiar...
Just as bakers and photographers have been hounded, so shall the churches be persecuted.
Sin acceptable by that church, then that church should not be attended IMO.
Homosexuality is so insanely nasty and distasteful to me that even after all that has happened I still cannot imagine why anyone supports it.
I find it humorous that “respectable” churches and center-right commentators are now endorsing gay marriage. The pretense was that they were not on board with it all along.
The true church has been a clandestine institution for most of human history.
Even conservative news outlets get it wrong. It wasn’t a ban on gay marriage, it was defending the word marriage from being reinterpreted. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman in matrimony. Nothing about gay anywhere in it.
The direction taken here is to refrain from suggesting that people engaging in homosexual acts should be physically attacked (as was implied in the past under some circumstances) and also the emphasis on defining the behavior as homosexual, not the person.
The Mormon church was suggesting that homosexuals caught in flagrante delicto should be physically attacked?
Cool! That’s really medieval old school ...
They can “emphasize” it any way they want, but the behavior is homosexual and an individual participating in homosexual acts is at least a homosexual—but could quite as well possibly fall into a number of other queerly diverse classifications; e.g. gathers/sniffs navel lint.
"Okay it takes a village to raise a child, not the Village People" ----Vancome Lady
I’m honestly surprised that the modern LDS church didn’t push sodomite marriage sooner (the FLDS are a bunch of Islamists who care little about their political image, though). Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, Glenn Beck, and the other degenerates of that church want to marry multiple wives in accordance with Mormon tradition and scripture, and recognize that their best chance of being allowed to do so is to destroy the sanctity of marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.