Cicero writes:

“Homosexual relationships are an aberrant mental condition . . . It’s not normal. It’s not even natural.”

Kind Benjamin writes:

“For the natural man is an enemy of God . . .”

With these two simple ingredients, we have all we need for an irrebutable, pro-gay-marriage, LDS syllogism.

1. Homosexuality is not natural.
2. But the natural man is an enemy of God.
3. Therefore, God wants us to do the _opposite_ of what the natural man would do.
4. And the natural man would clearly not be gay, because homosexuality is not natural.
5. Therefore, God wants you to be gay.

Or at the very least, to support gay marriage.
===

Thanks for playing, all. It’s been lots of fun reading the comments in this thread.

Many of you have given great comments about the original post topic. How do we reconcile Mormonism with our own divergent political or policy beliefs? How do we reconcile vague political theoretical statements with lived reality of our brothers and sisters? These aren’t easy questions. Gay marriage presents some really troublesome issues for Mormons, and promises to bring out our worst — and maybe, our best. Many comments explored these issues in depth I could never have matched myself, and I’m grateful to commenters for their contributions to this discussion. Thanks especially to those who have been regular and consistent voices for reason and compassion.

I do think the temperature is getting kind of high, though, in recent comments. And I know that some of my blogging hosts have the same concern. As a mere guest here, I really don’t want to abuse anyone’s hospitality by letting the rowdy party go on too late.

So, with the blessing of the regular admins round here, I’m going to shut down comments for now. Perhaps we’ll revisit the topic at a later date. Apologies to anyone who gets cut off mid-comment.

If you still reallyreallyreally need to say something more about it, e-mail me and I might post it. (Or, if you need to get something off your chest, just go tell Adam that he’s wrong (grin); or Janet that she’s awesome; and if you’re still bored, go make fun of DKL for the glaring lack of a marriage thread at MM.)

Good night, everyone, and good luck.

Don’t blame homosexuals for our current situation; the fault lies firmly in the other camp.

I not only agree with your name, but also your comment.

Actually, more cultures in the world practice polygyny than monogamy. Just in numbers, though, monogamy is practiced more than polygamy because the societies that practice monogamy tend to be much larger than polygynous ones. (I teach soc of family)

Kristine, “some women are lesbians just for college”

I know women – my wife for one – who consider their bisexuality a deep part of their personality, and would find that statement dismissive and offensive.

I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent with recognizing that bisexuality is a deep and important part of some people’s personality, and at the same time recognizing that there are others who truly are “bisexual until graduation.”

One of my own closest friends is somewhere on the lesbian continuum that might be accurately described as bisexual. But that doesn’t change the fact that for at least some other women, it’s a much less integral part of them — they enjoy their malleability during college, but have no inclination to commit to a permanent bisexual lifestyle.

Don’t blame homosexuals for our current situation; the fault lies firmly in the other camp.

I know that going Sonia Johnson (”you shouldn’t allow missionaries into your home”) is the fast track to excommunication. But if I disagree with the church’s political stance, can I refuse to put the sign on my lawn? Can I talk to friends or ward members about disagreements? Could I say that it seems problematic for a church with our history of marriage persecution to be so intolerant? What are the options for a church members who disagrees with a church political stance?

Could I even — gasp! — blog about it?

According to Dallin Oaks there’s no room for this kind of diversity:

I close with a thought about diversity. Diversity is one of the
favorite buzz words of our time. Properly applied, it is a wonderful
concept that encourages harmony, love, and individual growth. But like
its companion concept of tolerance, it can be misapplied to the
detriment or destruction of its proponents and those around them.

How much should we show tolerance toward evil? Do we tolerate foul
language at the pulpit? How about false doctrine? Should we practice
diversity in our personal values or our intimate associations?………

On this subject I applaud the words of Patricia B. Grey of Provo
in a recent letter to the editor in the Deseret News of October 20,
1993. Her letter begins by observing that the word diversity, as used in
some recent public communications, is more reflective of “modern
political thought than revealed truth.” Her letter continues:

Certainly “God cherishes diversity” in almost everything–except his
followers’ loyalties and beliefs. The LDS Church exists as evidence of
his rejection of diversity in beliefs.

A quick survey of the scriptures finds no support for such diversity
within the church. Rather there are more than 4~ calls to unity,
including “if ye are not one ye are not mine.”

I do not pretend to speak for the church, but perhaps I represent the
thousands of intelligent, independent people whose souls respond to
the spiritual power of general conference rather than the mental
exercises of Sunstone Symposium.[sic][13]

(FARMS Annual Dinner, 1993.)

Better have a chat to Sonia for some tips before erecting those lawn signs.