Thursday, March 5, 2015

Mormons Compromising With the Homosexual Agenda

An interesting article crossed my path this morning, in regards to law giving special rights to those who practice various sexual perversions.   The last three paragraphs are the ones I found most interesting:

So when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) announced today that it wants to strike a balance between sexual orientation and religious liberty, those of us closest to the issue understand how impossible that is. "Gays win; Christians lose." Those were the words of the White House's own Chai Feldblum. An open lesbian, Feldblum has been candid about the LGBT agenda and its impact on faith. When homosexuality clashes with religious liberty, she was clear: "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

While the Mormon Church should be applauded for trying to find a happy medium, its position is untenable. The legislation it unveiled today -- which supports Houston-type sexual orientation/gender identity ordinances -- is based on the flawed assumption that religious liberty can co-exist with government sanctioned and celebrated sexual immorality. Former Salt Lake City policeman Eric Moustos's case is just one example among a growing number of individual Americans being punished by the government because they exercised their freedom to believe. Like Atlanta's Kelvin Cochran, he lost his job because he refused to check his beliefs at the door to public service.

And the casualties are only climbing. In the Left's crusade, there are no Barronelle Stutzmans -- only militant, hard-lined activists willing to destroy anyone and anything in their way. To suggest that it's possible to compromise with that, however noble the intent, is at best naïve -- and at worst, deadly to our First Freedom.

I don’t understand the LDS’ position of compromise, unless it is furthering some agenda they have yet to reveal.  Perhaps fostering all this will aid in sanctioning polygamy as a legal marriage and they want that back?

No comments: