Harry Reid Publicly Supports Gay Marriage

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

… but i believe that members are not on safe ground when the openly oppose a position taken by the leadership, with precedents in 1974-77 and 1993 as being evidence. In an effort to ‘StayLDS”, one has to seriously consider the consequences of advocacy, and how it is to be done. Without hard and fast rules, it’s dangerous territory….

This is how I see it. Be careful…if you are having to stay and be a TR member for family reasons or whatever…just be careful.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd,” Reid said.

I was surprised that Senator Reid used the term “absurd.” It’s stronger than what Pres. Obama said. If I were in his shoes, I may have said that “I’ve always felt conflicted about that” or “I always felt that there was another side to the story that wasn’t getting fully represented.”

Why would he (a practiced politician) use such a strong word?

Might it be that he is making a point – that he can completely compartmentalize his public service from his religious allegiances?

Or maybe he just calls it like he sees it, Cwald style?

What say you?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

The article stated:

Quote:

LDS leaders regularly point to its statement on relationships with government, which says public officials who are Mormon make their own decisions and may not agree “with one another or even with a publicly stated church position.”

Does this not specifically state that LDS leaders recognize people will have different views? Perhaps local authorities and ward members need to be reminded of how their leaders in Salt Lake view such things. DIFFERING VIEWS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED.

To me it says nothing more than that the church is painfully aware of the political exigencies involved, and would really like to maintain its tax-exempt status.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Ray may moderate my comments out of existence if he so desires

He has no desire to do so. I know; I asked him. He very rarely moderates comments, and he almost never moderates them out of existence.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Or maybe he just calls it like he sees it, Cwald style?

As it should be. 🙂

[Anonymous]

I think, Wayfarer, you are right with everything you said.

I rethink my post. I think the Church leaders do allow others to hold a different viewpoint, they just think others are wrong, because the Brethren are inspired. That is all I hear in my ward. I’ve been saddened by strong words in classes. I haven’t built enough capital yet to share divergent views. But I know I’m not the only one sitting quietly, shifting uncomfortably, while the choir sings the 14 fundamentals.

[Anonymous]

Harry Reid says it always struck him as absurd because it is absurd. I don’t really know how you can think otherwise. Maybe the ONLY way you can think otherwise is if you think somehow that there is a lot of fluidity between the gay pool and the straight pool. There are bisexuals, but there are also plenty of people who only swim in their own pool. It’s the fear of conversion to homosexuality through legitimization of being gay (the gay lifestyle as some like to call it) that is seen as a threat to straight marriage. And that is an absurd idea. It’s right up there (IMO) with the notion that someone would have elective sex change surgery (which seems to be behind the idea in the CHI that a woman who changes to a man cannot hold the priesthood).

People are not as whimsical as this implies, and it’s also evidence of a lack of empathy: “Because I am not like that, and all people who are obedient (like me) conform and are the same, they have chosen to be different just to be different or perverse or subversive. They are whimsical, but I am constant. They are promiscuous, but I am faithful. They are selfish, but I am submissive.” This is the way people thought of homosexuals in the 1960s and earlier, which is one reason I think Mitt Romney’s bullying incident was a product of its time. People have a hard time shaking the cultural mores of their youth.

The other issue is that when homosexuality is on the downlow, it behaves more promiscuously and subversively than if it is legitimized. If you legalize pot, it’s no longer a gateway drug. If you outlaw it, you can only get it from dealers, and then you’re in contact with this underworld that is connected to worse factions. If you bring it into the light of day, you can have monogamy and fidelity and commitment and raising children. It’s not all Midnight Cowboy and Liberty Park anymore.

[Anonymous]

I just noticed that “dealers” is an anagram for “leaders.”

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Quote:

“The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd,” Reid said.

I was surprised that Senator Reid used the term “absurd.” It’s stronger than what Pres. Obama said. If I were in his shoes, I may have said that “I’ve always felt conflicted about that” or “I always felt that there was another side to the story that wasn’t getting fully represented.”

Why would he (a practiced politician) use such a strong word?

Might it be that he is making a point – that he can completely compartmentalize his public service from his religious allegiances?

Or maybe he just calls it like he sees it, Cwald style?

What say you?

Harry Reid used the word ‘absurd’ because the argument is COMPLETELY ABSURD. (edit: I see that hawkgrrrl beat me to the punch here) and yes he calls it like he sees it. as for cwald….

[Author]

Posts