Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Youtube Vid: It Gets Better With Mormon Family And Friends


Recommended Posts

Ah, I see you are trying your hand at sarcasm as a deflective tool. That is new one.

Let me remind you, here is the simple question that LDS Toronto asked which you painstakingly avoided answering, all the while pretending to have key insight:

So then Wade, why not? And, while you are at it, what is "the important difference between love and sexuality" of which you speak, and that you suggest LDST may not understand?

So the question was why not be happy when some one finds love. Is love then the determinative factor that is necessary for all relationships? If all it takes is finding love, should we rejoice when a person falls in love with an inanimate object? Should we rejoice when they fall in love with a different species? Should we rejoice in love when it exists between a minor and a mature individual? If love is all that is required, what you are really saying is if it feels good do it.

Social structure is built out of more than just love. We have social norms to build and strengthen a society; the cohesion allows for a structure to exist and last. What you are seeking is a social structure without norms, without cohesion, and then you will demand that it lasts. This is how entire civilizations have fallen throughout history. Some one demanding that social norms should no longer apply simply "because". Social norms are demanding; they demand obedience and observance. They demand discipline and without that discipline demanded of every citizen then the society fails.

Do you have any examples where a society thrived without norms or with the norms you demand are built on this kind of love you are talking about?

Link to comment

Social structure is built out of more than just love. We have social norms to build and strengthen a society; the cohesion allows for a structure to exist and last. What you are seeking is a social structure without norms, without cohesion, and then you will demand that it lasts. This is how entire civilizations have fallen throughout history. Some one demanding that social norms should no longer apply simply "because". Social norms are demanding; they demand obedience and observance. They demand discipline ....

.....like slavery, feminine inequity and marital monogamy.

Link to comment

So the question was why not be happy when some one finds love. Is love then the determinative factor that is necessary for all relationships? If all it takes is finding love, should we rejoice when a person falls in love with an inanimate object? Should we rejoice when they fall in love with a different species? Should we rejoice in love when it exists between a minor and a mature individual? If love is all that is required, what you are really saying is if it feels good do it.

This is just a form of the erroneous slippery slope argument. Of course, what you fail to realize is that the slippery slope is already here, according to your definition. As your peer, Wade Englund, intimated, love takes on many forms.

People love their iPads, and houses, and gardens, and trinkets. People love their pets, and nature, and food. People love their kids, and their neighbour's kids, and their friend's kids. People love their families, and friends, and friend's pets. People love all sorts of things.

Social structure is built out of more than just love. We have social norms to build and strengthen a society; the cohesion allows for a structure to exist and last. What you are seeking is a social structure without norms, without cohesion, and then you will demand that it lasts. This is how entire civilizations have fallen throughout history. Some one demanding that social norms should no longer apply simply "because". Social norms are demanding; they demand obedience and observance. They demand discipline and without that discipline demanded of every citizen then the society fails.

And now you've slid down the slope yourself. How does one go from 'loving an iPad' to 'destroying society'? No matter how you slice it, love between two consenting homosexuals does not destroy society.

Or, maybe it does. Maybe acceptance of homosexuality as a normal, healthy way of being does destroy society; replacing what we had with a society that is something better.

H.

Link to comment

So the question was why not be happy when some one finds love. Is love then the determinative factor that is necessary for all relationships? If all it takes is finding love, should we rejoice when a person falls in love with an inanimate object? Should we rejoice when they fall in love with a different species? Should we rejoice in love when it exists between a minor and a mature individual? If love is all that is required, what you are really saying is if it feels good do it.

Yeah, why not? When you speak of love between a minor and a mature adult, the why not is patently obvious.

The why not is not so obvious when you seek to prevent mature gay adults from the meaningful lifelong love and commitment that you have or seek to have.

Unless of course, you are one of those who are seemingly incapable of grasping a material difference between a gay couple and a man and his dog.

So, yeah, why not?

If an LDS couple gets sealed in the temple for time and eternity, and they are happy, good for them. Despite my personal beliefs about God and J.Smith, its their life. If they are happy, that is great.

Social structure is built out of more than just love. We have social norms to build and strengthen a society; the cohesion allows for a structure to exist and last. What you are seeking is a social structure without norms, without cohesion, and then you will demand that it lasts. This is how entire civilizations have fallen throughout history. Some one demanding that social norms should no longer apply simply "because". Social norms are demanding; they demand obedience and observance. They demand discipline and without that discipline demanded of every citizen then the society fails.

This entire paragraph sounds great, but is entirely devoid of any substance. Zero calories.

In our society, people can marry for any reason they wish, love, money, obedience to parents, or prophet, or for no reason at all.

Likewise, they are now free to divorce for any reason or no reason at all.

I take you think that adult gay couple who finds themselves in love, even if they don't believe in a sodomy hating God, should stay separate and celebate, for the greater good of society.

Do you have any examples where a society thrived without norms or with the norms you demand are built on this kind of love you are talking about?

I believe that the government exists to serve the interests of the people. You seem to believe that people exist to serve the interests of the government.

But to your point, I believe that we became a stronger nation when we removed the legal and social barriers ... the social norms ... that prevented interracial couples from marrying.

Likewise, I believe that we will be a stronger nation, when we remove the legal and social barriers that prevent gay couples from marrying.

Link to comment
Yeah, why not? When you speak of love between a minor and a mature adult, the why not is patently obvious.

The why not is not so obvious when you seek to prevent mature gay adults from the meaningful lifelong love and commitment that you have or seek to have.

Unless of course, you are one of those who are seemingly incapable of grasping a material difference between a gay couple and a man and his dog.

So, yeah, why not?

If an LDS couple gets sealed in the temple for time and eternity, and they are happy, good for them. Despite my personal beliefs about God and J.Smith, its their life. If they are happy, that is great.

This entire paragraph sounds great, but is entirely devoid of any substance. Zero calories.

In our society, people can marry for any reason they wish, love, money, obedience to parents, or prophet, or for no reason at all.

Likewise, they are now free to divorce for any reason or no reason at all.

I take you think that adult gay couple who finds themselves in love, even if they don't believe in a sodomy hating God, should stay separate and celebate, for the greater good of society.

I believe that the government exists to serve the interests of the people. You seem to believe that people exist to serve the interests of the government.

But to your point, I believe that we became a stronger nation when we removed the legal and social barriers ... the social norms ... that prevented interracial couples from marrying.

Likewise, I believe that we will be a stronger nation, when we remove the legal and social barriers that prevent gay couples from marrying.

I thought you might dodge the real issue and go for the minor/adult issue. It is such a shame to be so bloody obvious; yet you still dodge the entire issue of "love" be the determining factor of all social relationships. Then after dodging you chose to denigrate the whole issue, which you did not address. Typical, completely expected, and unoriginal.

Now, go back to the beginning and address the issue. And quit pandering to your own agenda. It is called a discussion because more than one person is invovled.

Link to comment

Here's the vid:

I admire the empathy and love shown by these people.

However, I wonder if the vid will be construed as a call for Latter-day Saints to go beyond loving those with SSA and to actually embrace same-sex attraction and same-sex behavior itself. Some of the negative comments to the vid on the YouTube website seem to bear this out.

Additionally, I wonder if LDS kids with SSA will look at this video and be confused by the ambiguity of the message. How does life "get better" for Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? By resisting SSA, obeying the commandments as taught by the Church, and hoping that the membership of the Church will love and support you in such an effort? Or by accepting it as "who you are," beginning to act in ways which break the commandments, and hoping that the Church will change its doctrines by embracing and endorsing same-sex behavior?

Are these people trying to convey a message like this: "Some people in the Church lack charity for people like you, but know that we love you, and God loves you. Obeying the precepts of the Church, particularly as regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity, will be difficult for you. Know that we will be here to love and support you as you cope with this difficulty."

Or is the message something like this: "Some people in the Church lack charity for people like you, including leaders who refuse to alter the doctrines of the Church to endorse and embrace the full ambit of same-sex attraction, including allowing Latter-day Saints to engage in same-sex behavior. We hope the Church will make this change. Meanwhile, know that we love you, and God loves you, even if other church members don't."

I find the Church's stance toward people with same-sex attraction to be manifestly compassionate and Christ-like. So it seems a bit odd that these folks appear to be putting themselves out as lone voices of love and compassion in the Church. That just ain't so. The subtext of this vid, then, appears to be "ignore the prophets and listen to us instead." If so, I find such a stance problematic. Church members should not set themselves up as voices of moral authority at odds with the priesthood leaders of the Church.

One last thought: One of the participants of the vid claims to presently be a bishop in the Church. I think it's quite inappropriate for him to appear in this vid and trade on his ecclesiastical calling to boost his credentials. It's tantamount to a businessman saying "Trust me about this investment because I am in my ward's bishopric," or "You should take my advice about voting for this political candidate because I am on the stake high council."

Thoughts?

-Smac

I have a gay child…my love for her is not diminished in any way. She is living the best life she can, and as her parent if there is any punishment that needs to be paid, I will endure it for her if allowed. Last week I asked her to come to church because I wanted her to attend a class on eternal families I was teaching…as did all my children, (because when their father asks them to do something), they were there. She is a very respectful and obedient daughter. The Church if it is God’s Church can never allow gay marriage, but it can open their hearts to their difficulties…we all struggle with something. I love my daughter and nothing she could ever do could change that. If any have a problem with that…I don’t care. It was a good day having all but my son on a mission under the same roof at Church. BTW, she is very loved by most in my Ward because they have known her for her entire life. She attends all our socials, if we are there.

Link to comment
Ah, I see you are trying your hand at sarcasm as a deflective tool. That is new one.

I see that you have mistaken an obvious instructional tool for a deflective tool. Nothing new there.

Let me remind you, here is the simple question that LDS Toronto asked which you painstakenly avoided answering, all the while pretending to have key insight:

Evidently, you have either forgotten or have yet to rightly comprehend, that I know better than you what I am painstakenly trying to do. Far from avoiding Toronto's questions, I am attempting to lay a proper epistemic foundation in hopes that he, and perhaps you and others, may eventually comprehend my answers.

So then Wade, why not? And, while you are at it, what is "the important difference between love and sexuality" of which you speak, and that you suggest LDST may not understand?

The answer to the second question may be gained by you and Toronto thoughtfully and directly answering the socratic question I posed to him.

Answering my question to him is also requisite to your effectively comprehending my answer to the first question--which I promise to give once the foundation for comprehension is established.

In short, I will be pleased to answer Toronto's questions to me once he and you answer my question to the two of you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
I know what love is. But sexuality - that's a complex topic. When you say 'sexuality' do you mean gender identity, sexual orientation, gender roles, biological composition, sexual behaviour, sexual attraction, some combination of the aforementioned, or something different altogether?

Sexuality need not be that complex. My mention of "sexuality" was in reference to sexual attractions and behaviors.

But enough games - I'll cop to it - I don't know what you define as the important difference is between love and sexuality. So tell us.

Ah, but I am confident that you are intelligent and do understand the obvious difference. You certainly love your mother and your children, but I doubt that she and they are the object of your sexual desires and behaviors--at least I hope they aren't. If so, I trust you can explain why there is that difference, or in other words, you can explain the important difference. So, tell us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

I see that you have mistaken an obvious instructional tool for a deflective tool. Nothing new there.

Evidently, you have either forgotten or have yet to rightly comprehend, that I know better than you what I am painstakenly trying to do. Far from avoiding Toronto's questions, I am attempting to lay a proper epistemic foundation in hopes that he, and perhaps you and others, may eventually comprehend my answers.

Back to condescension, I see. My, my, you are predictable.

If you have a point to make, by all means, go ahead and make it. No one is going to play your game of Socratic method.

Link to comment

I have a gay child…my love for her is not diminished in any way. She is living the best life she can, and as her parent if there is any punishment that needs to be paid, I will endure it for her if allowed. Last week I asked her to come to church because I wanted her to attend a class on eternal families I was teaching…as did all my children, (because when their father asks them to do something), they were there. She is a very respectful and obedient daughter. The Church if it is God’s Church can never allow gay marriage, but it can open their hearts to their difficulties…we all struggle with something. I love my daughter and nothing she could ever do could change that. If any have a problem with that…I don’t care. It was a good day having all but my son on a mission under the same roof at Church. BTW, she is very loved by most in my Ward because they have known her for her entire life. She attends all our socials, if we are there.

As a parent of a gay child, I am curious if you approve of the message, or like Smac, are you concerned with the hidden subtext.

Link to comment

I thought I was clear in my response...what are you fishing for?

I am trying to find out ("fish for") whether you approve of the You Tube message as it presented, or don't.

Now I am curious, as to why you won't give me a straight answer.

Link to comment

Sexuality need not be that complex. My mention of "sexuality" was in reference to sexual attractions and behaviors.

Ah, but I am confident that you are intelligent and do understand the obvious difference. You certainly love your mother and your children, but I doubt that she and they are the object of your sexual desires and behaviors--at least I hope they aren't. If so, I trust you can explain why there is that difference, or in other words, you can explain the important difference. So, tell us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sexuality is complex. You've chosen to call sexual attraction and sexual behaviour "sexuality". Of course, this is a limited view. In fact, sexual attraction and sexual behaviour are different things.

So really, you are asking me to play 'guess what's in Wade's head" when you ask me to define the one important difference between love and sexual attraction. Fine, I'll answer straight up, but then I expect you to engage with some substance - tell me my answer matched/didn't match, and then tell me what the answer is.

Love is an emotion produced amongst human beings to bond socially. Sexual attraction determines what types of human beings arouse sexual desire in ourselves. One does not have to exist for the other to be present.

Now, spill, Wade. What do you think the difference is between love and sexual attraction, and what does this have to do with being happy when two homosexuals find love?

H.

Link to comment

Evidently, you have either forgotten or have yet to rightly comprehend, that I know better than you what I am painstakenly trying to do. Far from avoiding Toronto's questions, I am attempting to lay a proper epistemic foundation in hopes that he, and perhaps you and others, may eventually comprehend my answers.

You have 10,000 posts worth of "the world according to Wade" on this board. The foundation is laid. Now please move on to engagement....

The answer to the second question may be gained by you and Toronto thoughtfully and directly answering the socratic question I posed to him.

Answering my question to him is also requisite to your effectively comprehending my answer to the first question--which I promise to give once the foundation for comprehension is established.

In short, I will be pleased to answer Toronto's questions to me once he and you answer my question to the two of you.

That was the Socratic method? You are trying to teach us? Fine, teach us. Lay out your cards, Socrates....

H.

Link to comment
Back to condescension, I see. My, my, you are predictable.

Speaking of predictable, you keep playing this victim card even though it is transparently hypocritical. As Pahoran rightly says, "We've been Jaybeared." :bad:

If you have a point to make, by all means, go ahead and make it. No one is going to play your game of Socratic method.

That is okay. My point has already been made socratically to the intelligently minded. In your case, I lack the faith to help the blind to see. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Sexuality is complex. You've chosen to call sexual attraction and sexual behaviour "sexuality". Of course, this is a limited view. In fact, sexual attraction and sexual behaviour are different things.

Yes, lengthy dissertations can be written on each detail of the subject. And, were that my intent, then you may have a point. It isn't, and so you don't.

Fine, I'll answer straight up, but then I expect you to engage with some substance - tell me my answer matched/didn't match, and then tell me what the answer is.

Love is an emotion produced amongst human beings to bond socially. Sexual attraction determines what types of human beings arouse sexual desire in ourselves. One does not have to exist for the other to be present.

Not bad. Was that so hard?

Now, spill, Wade. What do you think the difference is between love and sexual attraction?

I like what wikipedia says about love: "Love is an emotion of a strong affection and personal attachment. Love is also a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection; and "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another". Love may also be described as actions towards others or oneself based on compassion, or as actions towards others based on affection.

Notice that there was no mention of sex or sexual attraction--though in some instances sexual behavior may incorporate elements of love and may be incorporated in, and enhance one's expression of love?

The important difference, beside the difference between , is that love is far broader in scope, meaning, and means of expression than sex or sexual attraction. The two sets may only intersect in certain ways for certain relationships.

...and what does this have to do with being happy when two homosexuals find love?

Now that you understand the important difference between love and sexuality, let me now answer your question by saying that we can and have been happy when people, regardless of their sexual orientation, who feel and express "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another." Our objection isn't to love between homosexuals, but rather the sexual behavior between homosexuals--which we deem to be contrary to "the good of each other." In other words, our love of and for homosexuals compels us to be against homosexual behavior, and against sanctioning that behavior. :good:

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

Not bad. Was that so hard?

It was well worth the wait for a Wikipedia quote...

Now that you understand the important difference between love and sexuality, let me now answer your question by saying that we can and have been happy when people, regardless of their sexual orientation, who feel and express "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another." Our objection isn't to love between homosexuals, but rather the sexual behavior between homosexuals--which we deem to be contrary to "the good of each other." In other words, our love of and for homosexuals compels us to be against homosexual behavior, and against sanctioning that behavior. :good:

Tell me, what is it about sexual behaviour between homosexuals that is contrary to "the good of each other"? How does opposing sexual behaviour between homosexuals increase "the good of each other"?

I've got other questions that might get this thread shutdown. So I'll ask it this way - Is there consensual sexual behaviour that can take place between a married heterosexual couple that is contrary to "the good of each other" and do the LDS feel compeled to oppose and sanction that behaviour because of their love of and for heterosexuals?

H.

Link to comment
Tell me, what is it about sexual behaviour between homosexuals that is contrary to "the good of each other"?

Such is the nature of all sin.

How does opposing sexual behaviour between homosexuals increase "the good of each other"?

You want to know why opposing that which is contrary to the good of each other may increase the good of each other? It seems self-explanatory and obvious to me. It is like asking how opposing things that are harmful to each other will be good for each other? :mega_shok:

I've got other questions that might get this thread shutdown. So I'll ask it this way - Is there consensual sexual behaviour that can take place between a married heterosexual couple that is contrary to "the good of each other" and do the LDS feel compeled to oppose and sanction that behaviour because of their love of and for heterosexuals?

Since this is wildly off-topic, and treads very close to the edge of impropriety, let me answer as briefly and sensitively as I can: Not officially--and this for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the important difference in context between married heterosexuals and that of homosexuals. In some ways, and to varying degrees, what is or isn't good for each other, and also what may or may not be a compelling issue to address (either as a Church or in terms of public policy and governmental action), isn't just about the behaviors, themselves, but about with whom, and under what circumstances, and to what general end, and the extent to which, the behaviors occur.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

Tell me, what is it about sexual behaviour between homosexuals that is contrary to "the good of each other"?

Such is the nature of all sin.

You are begging the question, Wade. This really says that sexual behaviour between homosexuals is contrary to "the good of each other" because the LDS church has labeled it as contrary to "the good of each other" by calling it a sin.

What you ought to do is write down your conclusion (Homosexual behaviour is contrary to "the good of each other") and then write down your premises (Homosexual behaviour is labeled a sin by the LDS Church. The Church labels it a sin because it is contrary to "the good of each other") and then fill in the big gap between your premise and your conclusions.

The way you've answered here, you aren't really answering. I agree, you are taking a difficult position to defend, so this may be very difficult for you without proper rhetorical and logical training. But I think you are up to it, Wade - you seem a bright enough guy.

You want to know why opposing that which is contrary to the good of each other may increase the good of each other? It seems self-explanatory and obvious to me. It is like asking how opposing things that are harmful to each other will be good for each other? :mega_shok:

It would be self-explanatory if you could answer the above questions with something more than "the LDS Church says homosexual behaviour is a sin, ergo, it is bad"

Since this is wildly off-topic, and treads very close to the edge of impropriety, let me answer as briefly and sensitively as I can: Not officially--and this for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the important difference in context between married heterosexuals and that of homosexuals. In some ways, and to varying degrees, what is or isn't good for each other, and also what may or may not be a compelling issue to address (either as a Church or in terms of public policy and governmental action), isn't just about the behaviors, themselves, but about with whom, and under what circumstances, and to what general end, and the extent to which, the behaviors occur.

Actually, it's right on topic - you said earlier that there is a difference between love and sexual attraction/sexual behaviour. You also said that the LDS are compeled to love the homosexual while protesting their sexual acts. Since it is the act that you protest and not the person, I don't see why you would condone perverse sexual acts for some but not for others.

So explain it - what is the contextual difference between a married heterosexual couple and married homosexual couple? What circumstances and general ends and extents are you referring to that make perverse sexual acts OK for the heterosexual couple but not OK for the homosexual couple?

And let's stay away from analogies like "should 14 year olds be allowed to drive?". Stay away from sexual details themselves, and answer the questions concretely and directly.

H.

Link to comment

Speaking of predictable, you keep playing this victim card even though it is transparently hypocritical. As Pahoran rightly says, "We've been Jaybeared." :bad:

I suppose it was rude of me, to point out that you were, once again resorting to condescension.

Since you, obviously, resort to condescension to mask feelings of personal and emotional inadequacies, probably best that in the future I take just take pity, and play along with your charade.

That is okay. My point has already been made socratically to the intelligently minded. In your case, I lack the faith to help the blind to see. Oh well...

I am sorry I am to stoopid to understand your point. But thank you for trying, Wade. You are as patient as you are wise.

Link to comment

I am trying to find out ("fish for") whether you approve of the You Tube message as it presented, or don't.

Now I am curious, as to why you won't give me a straight answer.

It would seem apparent with anyone who read my remarks that I agree with what the family members said, but I am still opposed to gay marriage. Is that straight enough? BTW, one thing I am not "fishing for" is your approval.

Edited by Bill “Papa” Lee
Link to comment

It would seem apparent with anyone who read my remarks that I agree with what the family members said, but I am still opposed to gay marriage. Is that straight enough?

Again, you are still being coy. The question can be answered yes, or no. Really, it can.

Your point is clear, but its not responsive to the question. Smac agreed with what the family members said, but still criticized the message, as presented.

Look, if for some strange reason, you don't want to answer the question, then don't. At this point, I more curious about why you think the question is toxic, than your answer to the question.

BTW, one thing I am not 'fishing for" is your approval.

I would think not.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...