Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[beelzebabette]

My aunt never was married and lived a fulfilling, happy life for 65 years. She definitely would have like to have had her own spouse and children, but it didn't work out for her.

I'm not intending to be snide or whiny, but hearing about how fulfilling a life of abstinence should be from someone who isn't contemplating that prospect has a semi-hollow ring to it.

[Indy Coug]

If she was, it only further proves his point.

Well, she lived in the Bay Area with another single female LDS member. They did have separate bedrooms.

[creekster]

Just curious, have you ever considered that your Aunt might be gay?

If she was, it only further proves his point.

[Indy Coug]

Just curious, have you ever considered that your Aunt might be gay?

Right now, she's dead.

[ewth8tr]

So it's impossible to be happy under #1? My aunt never was married and lived a fulfilling, happy life for 65 years. She definitely would have like to have had her own spouse and children, but it didn't work out for her. However, that made her closer to her extended family than likely would have been otherwise. She was the aunt I was closest to and spent the most time with.

Ideal situation? Hardly. Was she consigned to a life of misery and woe? No. Will the Plan of Happiness be any less happy for her in her remaining ((Infinity - 65) / Infinity)% of existence? No.

Just curious, have you ever considered that your Aunt might be gay?

[The_Tick]

So it's impossible to be happy under #1? My aunt never was married and lived a fulfilling, happy life for 65 years. She definitely would have like to have had her own spouse and children, but it didn't work out for her. However, that made her closer to her extended family than likely would have been otherwise. She was the aunt I was closest to and spent the most time with.

Ideal situation? Hardly. Was she consigned to a life of misery and woe? No. Will the Plan of Happiness be any less happy for her in her remaining ((Infinity - 65) / Infinity)% of existence? No.

It isn't impossible...as you have pointed out.

It is unfair in the demand though as NS has pointed out.

[Indy Coug]

You are recognizing that they are gay. You are telling them two things:

1. Live your life celebate and have full membership.

2. Try and fight through a hetero marraige and hope it doesn't fail.

Neither of those sound like a "Plan of Happiness" to me.

So it's impossible to be happy under #1? My aunt never was married and lived a fulfilling, happy life for 65 years. She definitely would have like to have had her own spouse and children, but it didn't work out for her. However, that made her closer to her extended family than likely would have been otherwise. She was the aunt I was closest to and spent the most time with.

Ideal situation? Hardly. Was she consigned to a life of misery and woe? No. Will the Plan of Happiness be any less happy for her in her remaining ((Infinity - 65) / Infinity)% of existence? No.

[Non Sequitur]

Gay members are allowed full participation (including priesthood and temple ordinances) as long as they live the law of chastity. Just like straight members

How ludicrous is it to tell someone to live the law of chastity and then not allow them to marry?

[The_Tick]

So if you possess any inborn proclivities you should be allowed to act upon those without ecclesiastical repercussions?

Gay members are allowed full participation (including priesthood and temple ordinances) as long as they live the law of chastity. Just like straight members.

Hopfrog seems to have openly reconciled himself with that requirement without malice towards the church (even if he may not have always felt that way in the past).

Round and round we go....

You are recognizing that they are gay. You are telling them two things:

1. Live your life celebate and have full membership.

2. Try and fight through a hetero marraige and hope it doesn't fail.

Neither of those sound like a "Plan of Happiness" to me.

[Indy Coug]

Don't roll your eyes at me!


Of course not. The Church can say, "If you want to serve a mission for the Church, then we'll call you to your home country, so we can be on the right side of the law."

No one's forcing them to serve a mission. I want them to have an easier time being here legally. But, if they're not, and until that day comes, and they are going to go around representing the Church, I think that their immigration status should be documented.

El Garrapatas is right.

So the child has to atone for the sin of their parents?

[Indy Coug]

The Church is telling gay folks to go ahead and be gay, just don't expect to be married or be recognized as a member of the Church if you are a practicing gay. "Get your sexual orientation squared away and you are good to go."

So if you possess any inborn proclivities you should be allowed to act upon those without ecclesiastical repercussions?

Gay members are allowed full participation (including priesthood and temple ordinances) as long as they live the law of chastity. Just like straight members.

Hopfrog seems to have openly reconciled himself with that requirement without malice towards the church (even if he may not have always felt that way in the past).

[The_Tick]

Pick on the gays? What's the connection here? Do you mean by expecting gay members to live the law of the land, but not illegals?

Do you mean the church expecting members with same-sex attraction to live the law of chastity, but not illegals?

FTR...I am not getting pissy. You just come off as an authority on lots of things.

I find it curious that the Church is willing to turn a blind eye towards one group of people, while focusing much time and effort against another.

Also...I consider someone being here illegally a moral issue also.

If someone is knowingly breaking the law...you would have to question their morals.

But I am in the camp that gays are born that way, not a choice.

So...if we shouldn't punish a child born to an illegal, then in my thinking we don't really have a right to punish a gay person for how they were born either.

The Church is telling gay folks to go ahead and be gay, just don't expect to be married or be recognized as a member of the Church if you are a practicing gay. "Get your sexual orientation squared away and you are good to go."

The Church should extend the same favor to illegals. You can come to Church if you are illegal, you just can't participate. "Get your Citizenship squared and you are good to go."

[Indy Coug]

I just think it isn't fair to pick on the gays and give the illegals a pass. After all...neither of them had a choice right?

Pick on the gays? What's the connection here? Do you mean by expecting gay members to live the law of the land, but not illegals?

Do you mean the church expecting members with same-sex attraction to live the law of chastity, but not illegals?

[Indy Coug]

I am glad to meet the final arbiter on what is right and wrong for the Church.

Don't get pissy with me just because you came up with a bunch of bad arguments in this thread.

[wuapinmon]

So it's now the church's job to deport members?

Don't roll your eyes at me!


Of course not. The Church can say, "If you want to serve a mission for the Church, then we'll call you to your home country, so we can be on the right side of the law."

No one's forcing them to serve a mission. I want them to have an easier time being here legally. But, if they're not, and until that day comes, and they are going to go around representing the Church, I think that their immigration status should be documented.

El Garrapatas is right.