I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[classicman]

marriage and civil unions are not considered the same thing by some

[piercehawkeye45]

That isn't being against any law that protects homosexuality. I disagree with him about gay marriage as well but civil unions is protecting homosexuality (to a degree)...

[SamIam]

Just because he would allow civil unions does not mean Huntsman is a champion for gay rights. Compare the following statement made by Huntsman with the teachings of the Mormon Church.

Huntsman:

I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it’s something I would not be in favor of.

Mormon Doctrine:

The Mormon Church is firm on its position condemning homosexuality as sinful behavior. One of the tenets of Mormon doctrine is the Law of Chastity. It permits sexual relations only between a husband and wife who are legally married. Marriage is a very important part of Mormon doctrine too. In the Mormon temple a couple can be married for eternity. This is part of living worthy to inherit the kingdom of God...

The Mormon Church will not bow to popular opinion that asserts because 'they were born that way', gays and lesbians should be permitted to live a homosexual lifestyle. The Mormon Church does not accept biological determination for same-sex attraction. The factors contributing to attraction are complex; it cannot be pinpointed to solely genetics or environment. But whether it is 'natural' or not, it is written in the Book of Mormon that the natural man is an enemy to God (Mosiah 3:19).

As a politician, Huntsman takes into account the growing acceptance on the part of the public of the gay life style and supports civil unions. Yet he is against "redefining marriage." Since he is a Mormon, is he is against gay marriage because “marriage is a very important part of Mormon doctrine”? Just how accepting of gays can he really be if he believes the Mormon dogma that gays are “an enemy to God”?

I remain skeptical.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by SamIam

As a politician, Huntsman takes into account the growing acceptance on the part of the public of the gay life style and supports civil unions. Yet he is against "redefining marriage." Since he is a Mormon, is he is against gay marriage because “marriage is a very important part of Mormon doctrine”? Just how accepting of gays can he really be if he believes the Mormon dogma that gays are “an enemy to God”?

I remain skeptical.

Do you believe the same with Romney, who is also a Mormon? Or, maybe its possible that both candidates are Mormon without allowing the religion to control their beliefs?

[SamIam]

I am willing to concede that both candidates - and any one else for that matter - may not allow their religion to "control their beliefs." Although isn't that how religion is defined - a system of belief?

Maybe Huntsman is a kinder, gentler Mormon who won't damage your stomach lining. I don't know.

I had a friend who is a lesbian who grew up in the Mormon church. Some of her stories just broke my heart. Her parents married her off at 16, so she could "over come" being gay. Needless to say, it didn't work. And I myself have had some unpleasant encounters with Mormons.

So, maybe my view of the Mormons is distorted. I'll admit that. But I still would rather not have a Mormon president.

[Stormieweather]

Or, maybe its possible that both candidates are Mormon without allowing the religion to control their beliefs?

I don't think that is possible. The very foundation of religion IS a system of "beliefs". Many of the more extreme religions disallow tolerance, insisting that conversion and obedience to their dogma is the only acceptable way to live.

And in my opinion, someone who is unable or unwilling to tolerate differences in lifestyles and beliefs has no business running a multi-cultural and diverse country such as the USA.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

I don't think that is possible. The very foundation of religion IS a system of "beliefs". Many of the more extreme religions disallow tolerance, insisting that conversion and obedience to their dogma is the only acceptable way to live.

How is that different from Catholicism or Islam? The only difference is that we are not used to people of Mormon faith distancing themselves from the fundamentalist level while we are used to it with Catholicism or Islam.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Just because he would allow civil unions does not mean Huntsman is a champion for gay rights.

At this time, this is not a MAJOR issue to me. We have MUCH BIGGER problems to deal with.

Huntsman takes into account the growing acceptance on the part of the public of the gay life style and supports civil unions. Yet he is against "redefining marriage."

Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

How are they different from the government's perspective, ie the perspective from which we should care at all what any politician says about it? Any difference would be discriminatory, as far as I can tell.

[DanaC]

I have to say, his support for civil unions does him a great deal of credit in my view. It speaks to one of two things. Either he holds anti-gay views but isn't letting that adversely affect his political role. instead going for a compromise position that maintains the primacy of heterosexual marriage, but sanctions an important step forward in terms of alternatives to marriage.

Or, he is relatively moderate for a devout Christian.

Given that some of that stripe are dead against any acceptance of homosexuality at an official level, it was a strong stance to take.

[ZenGum]

Doesn't he accept evolution? For a religious guy, especially in the US, that makes him moderate.

Heck I've heard he even believes in anthropogenic climate change. That makes him the lunatic fringe of moderate conservatives.

[DanaC]

The thing is, I don't think anyone on the left, even on the centre left is going to find themselves agreeing with a great deal of his opinions or policy intentions.

The question is, could he, from the right, find a compromise that worked for the whole of the centre, more or less, and take the left with him some of the way.

I don't know if that's likely or possible.

Ron Paul has been quite interesting. There have been a few times I've found myself nodding along. The comments he made about waterboarding for instance.

[DanaC]

Someone needs to be able to break through the impasse in Washington.

[Undertoad]

Huntsman's views on marriage/civil union seem identical to Obama's.

[piercehawkeye45]

Mormonism is just like any other religion: there are good honest people who can think for themselves and there are crazy fundamentalist assholes who feel they need to everyone to adhere to their beliefs. I grew up with two Mormons, in Wisconsin not Utah, and they were not extreme by any means. One was actually good friends with a gay guy as well.

I can't find the original article about Huntsman and his faith that I read but this one basically says the same thing (at least from what I skimmed over):

Huntsman has called his adherence to Mormon practices “tough to define.’’ He has described himself as more spiritual than religious and as someone who gets “satisfaction from many different types of religions and philosophies.’’

The former Utah governor’s seeming ambivalence has surprised and disappointed many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of whom have questioned whether Huntsman is trying to distance himself from his church for political gain. But others welcome his ambiguity: For them, it highlights a growing debate about whether this relatively new religion can accommodate a more elastic definition of what it means to be Mormon.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-1...mormon-circles