Thanks for the reply. I was actually speaking more to generalities, not necessarily about this site.

But thanks for the warm welcome.

I would be surprised to find blog posts here which label all Prop 8 supporters as homophobes or unthinking automatons who blindly follow others. I would also be surprised to find blog posts here which label all Prop 8 opponents as better than Prop 8 supporters. I would be most surprised to see either situation allowed to stand without thoughtful comments from someone on the “other side” of the issue.

So, feel free to continue the conversation. The only label you’ll have is the one you designate for yourself, which, at this point seems to be one that, like nearly every person involved at this site, includes intense amounts of soul searching and thoughtful research.

As such, I think it’s important, too, for those who so struggle and/or who have chosen different paths not to close their hearts to people who support the Church’s position on gay marriage and on sexual morality.

Laura says: “They, too, are part of the flock that needs to be cared for and loved, even as they are taught to let go of the negativity and misunderstandings they’ve harbored and cultivated.”

There is negativity and misunderstandings also going the other way. As someone who actively supported Prop 8, I don’t want to be labeled as a hateful homophobe, which I have been. The support of the Church’s position does not mean one has necessarily bought into fear or hateful misrepresentations. Please leave space for that reality; many of us chose to support Prop 8 only after much soul-searching and pondering and heartfelt concern and realization that this was a hard, hard issue for many. And not w/o our own personal experiences w/ those who deal with SSA and/or who have chosen different paths outside the Church.

Just as I reject Church members lumping gays together in hurtful ways, I would hope that you can help reject similar hurtful, closed-hearted lumping together of Church members or others who don’t support SSM. I have seen a *great* deal of concern and thoughtfulness among those who wholeheartedly also support the Church on this issue.

It is essential in my mind for dialogue and respectful relationships to avoid labeling, name-calling, and the like. And also of dismissing the position the church and many others have taken on this topic. Just because there are some instances of closed-minded behavior does not mean everyone who supported prop 8 is closed-minded.

Interestingly, the material used from the “interview” was this:

“There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person.”

and this:

“The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those
related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific
questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things
the Church doesn’t have a position on.”

(And as a side note, the stake presidency in question did say, “Parents especially are called upon to show love and support for a child who brings them the news that he/she is experiencing homosexual feelings.”)

We also have to remember these leaders were speaking to members, some of whom were recently donating thousands of dollars to support the Yes on 8 campaign, a campaign run on fearmongering and half-truths. The members who most need to hear messages about loving GLBT members and their families are also the ones most likely to be filled with recently reinforced and validated fears and prejudicial walls that need to be torn down. They, too, are part of the flock that needs to be cared for and loved, even as they are taught to let go of the negativity and misunderstandings they’ve harbored and cultivated.

I think the stake presidency involved here will likely be seen by most as pushing the envelope for good as it opens up a place for thoughtful discussion about homosexuality and the Church. Everyone has to start somewhere and these guys seem to want to put their best foot forward and show by example what it means to truly accept and love all of God’s children.

I do have to say that statements like this make me wince:

Without condoning conduct inconsistent with the teachings of the Church, members have a duty to show love even to those who choose other life paths.

Why the qualification? What’s wrong with this variation:

Members have a duty to show love even to those who choose other life paths.

These quibbles aside, I really appreciate an effort by your SP to defuse this issue and reduce the level of fear and hate toward gay people that is so common in the Church.

However, thinking it might be my friends stake based on what she has told me about talks their stake president has given (of course not sure he is still the stake president).

So gratifying to know there are leaders who do understand.

Sheryl