Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Moliere]

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't see this as a big deal. It's no surprise that the Church will have policies like this when they've made it clear that gay marriage is in direct conflict with core doctrine.

I'm not sure people think it will be a big deal as far as membership or exclusion goes. I'm sure the number of people that are affected by this new policy is small. I think the outrage is more that the church is backtracking a bit after make changes to policies in the past 5-6 years to be more friendly to gays. It wasn't more than 6 years ago that just being gay (or in LDS terms, having SSA) constituted a sin and required repentance. The phenomenon that you can be gay and celibate and still be in good standing with the church is a recent phenomenon...or at least recently codified since there were bishops that ignored the policy in the handbook.

[TripletDaddy]

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't see this as a big deal. It's no surprise that the Church will have policies like this when they've made it clear that gay marriage is in direct conflict with core doctrine.

This is a bit disingenuous. The problem isn't the degree of surprise it is the clear homophobic tone implied in punishing the kids. You mentioned the polygamy example as an example of the church being consistent yet you didn't mention anything about kids that live with heterosexual parents that are living in a manner that is in direct conflict with church doctrine. Kids with parents that are cohabitating or addicted to drugs or who are openly and vehemently anti Mormon. These kids aren't restricted from being blessed or given a name or being baptized. In fact we would generally hail these kids as examples. But if your parents are gay (or polyg apparently) then the kid is treated differently. I think saying "what's the big deal, no surprise" comes off as a lazy way to approach what is actually a serious issue. Just my thought.

[falafel]

I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't see this as a big deal. It's no surprise that the Church will have policies like this when they've made it clear that gay marriage is in direct conflict with core doctrine.

But punishing the kids for the sins of their parents? That's a bit of a surprise, no?

[smokymountainrain]

Men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Oh and they'll be punished for their parents "sins" too.

[Moliere]

Men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Oh and they'll be punished for their parents "sins" too.

Where is SU to say it's not a punishment but a blessing to not be able to be baptized?

[SCcoug]

I wonder how long this policy has been in the works.

[kccougar]

This is a bit disingenuous. The problem isn't the degree of surprise it is the clear homophobic tone implied in punishing the kids. You mentioned the polygamy example as an example of the church being consistent yet you didn't mention anything about kids that live with heterosexual parents that are living in a manner that is in direct conflict with church doctrine. Kids with parents that are cohabitating or addicted to drugs or who are openly and vehemently anti Mormon. These kids aren't restricted from being blessed or given a name or being baptized. In fact we would generally hail these kids as examples. But if your parents are gay (or polyg apparently) then the kid is treated differently. I think saying "what's the big deal, no surprise" comes off as a lazy way to approach what is actually a serious issue. Just my thought.

It's definitely lazy. That's how I am when it comes to arguing religion so I probably shouldn't have weighed in in the first place. Then again, this same basic policy has been around for years as it relates to polygamists and no one has really cared. Maybe there is some disingenuousness there too.

[TripletDaddy]

It's definitely lazy. That's how I am when it comes to arguing religion so I probably shouldn't have weighed in in the first place. Then again, this same basic policy has been around for years as it relates to polygamists and no one has really cared. Maybe there is some disingenuousness there too.

Did the church disseminate a widespread communication regarding this policy as it pertains to polygamists? If not the. Maybe that is why people didn't react...it wasn't well known. lAgain what would that matter anyway? Polygamy isn't a pressing social issue right now but you seem to be suggesting that because people didn't raise a fuss about that then they shouldn't about this recent announcement. It is non responsive to the actual issue and an obvious attempt to dissemble. Unfortunately this recent policy is silly and largely indefensible which is why we are seeing the flaccid explanations or rationalizations that are popping up.

This is is so incredibly dumb that I'm guessing the church addresses it or clarifies it sooner rather than later. Huge airball out of slc, but that's what you get when you put Utes in charge!

[SeattleUte]

Where is SU to say it's not a punishment but a blessing to not be able to be baptized?

I think the LDS Church has jumped the shark. That's all I have to say. You guys are wasting key strokes on this. It's just ridiculous.

[Maximus]

I think the LDS Church has jumped the shark. That's all I have to say. You guys are wasting key strokes on this. It's just ridiculous.

I am shocked. Since you said that like 7 years ago.

[All-American]

I think the LDS Church has jumped the shark. That's all I have to say. You guys are wasting key strokes on this. It's just ridiculous.

Why didn't you tell us earlier?

[Sullyute]

If you believe that children choose their parents they they should be held accountable for choosing gay ones.

Lol.

[scottie]

[New Mexican Disaster]

This is a thoroughly disgusting, short sighted and stupid policy. I must be very naive when I think things might get better. Punishments against innocent children is indefensible.

[old_gregg]

pretty funny that the alleged justification for this is to avoid contention between same sex parents and their kids. nothing avoids contention like forcing a kid to move out and disavow his parents' marriage.