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.
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.
I thought I was clear in my response...what are you fishing for?
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away"Joni Mitchell There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite) See my Poetry Blog
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.
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras --Dr. Theodore Woodward
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. --Sir Isaac Newton
Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity --Father William of Ockham
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....
Quote
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.
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras --Dr. Theodore Woodward
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. --Sir Isaac Newton
Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity --Father William of Ockham
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."
Quote
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...
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
...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.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
It was well worth the wait for a Wikipedia quote...
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.
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.
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras --Dr. Theodore Woodward
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. --Sir Isaac Newton
Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity --Father William of Ockham
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
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.
Quote
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?
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"
Quote
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.
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras --Dr. Theodore Woodward
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. --Sir Isaac Newton
Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity --Father William of Ockham
Speaking of predictable, you keep playing this victim card even though it is transparently hypocritical. As Pahoran rightly says, "We've been Jaybeared."
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.
Quote
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.
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 Pa Pa, 03 May 2012 - 06:41 AM.
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away"Joni Mitchell There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite) See my Poetry Blog
One of the reasons God gave it a purpose and guidelines. Or it has always been so and he is continuing with the same model.
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away"Joni Mitchell There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite) See my Poetry Blog
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.
Quote
BTW, one thing I am not 'fishing for" is your approval.
Hey Pops, you are being Jaybeared....again, and again, and again. Best never to feed a troll.
Edited by Storm Rider, 03 May 2012 - 07:44 AM.
Storm Rider
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
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.
I think that people use whatever assets they can to put forth agendas. I don't have one, I am just someone who knows about this first hand and don't really believe that the opinions of those who do not matter very much. BTW, agendas are not always bad or good...I just don't have one, and unlike most "I do have dog in this fight".
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away"Joni Mitchell There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite) See my Poetry Blog
Hey Pops, you are being Jaybeared....again, and again, and again. Best never to fed a troll.
I am a slow learner.
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away"Joni Mitchell There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite) See my Poetry Blog
Hey Pops, you are being Jaybeared....again, and again, and again. Best never to feed a troll.
Yes, its completely outrageous that I would ask an active LDS parent with a gay child, whether he approved of a video being circulated by LDS parents with gay children, which was posted here by SMAC who then criticized it for its"subtext."
How incredibly "jaybear" it was of me to expect a straight answer to simple question. Thank you for your valuable insight.
0
This topic is locked
Pa Pa, on 02 May 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:
