178 replies to this topic

[sethpayne]

smac97, on 30 April 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

  I doubt you would say that gay rights groups "attempt to foist their beliefs on the public" (though, given the proclivity of such groups to use litigation rather than the legislative process to further its objectives, the verb "foist" seems far more aptly described to them than to the Church).

I can't speak for LDST but my reaction to the above statement is ... "Duh! Of course gay rights groups are trying to foist their beliefs upon the public."  I don't think they would even deny this fact.

Every advocacy group is trying to push its own viewpoint and agenda.  This isn't a bad thing; its just the nature of modern public discourse.  The more freely ideas are "pushed" and argued, the more likely it is that discourse will result in workable compromise and understanding.

[selek1]

sethpayne, on 30 April 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

I can't speak for LDST but my reaction to the above statement is ... "Duh! Of course gay rights groups are trying to foist their beliefs upon the public."  I don't think they would even deny this fact.

Every advocacy group is trying to push its own viewpoint and agenda.  This isn't a bad thing; its just the nature of modern public discourse.  The more freely ideas are "pushed" and argued, the more likely it is that discourse will result in workable compromise and understanding.

If this were true, then LDST and the others wouldn't be trying so hard to portray such involvement as somehow inappropriate or even sinister.

If this were true, then we would not have seen calls from gay rights groups demanding that the Church be stripped of its tax-exempt status and Mormons (and other pro-marriage groups) punished and even disenfranchaised for their advocacy.

No- contrary to your claims, we are not witnessing a contest of ideas or a debate over opinions.

We are watching, in rea-time, a coordinated effort to delegitimize, stigmatize, and ultimately silence advocates of traditional marriage and Gospel morality.

Far, far too much of the narrative of the gay marriage crowd has not been, "We disagree- and here's why."

It has, instead been "Shut up!" and "How DARE you disagree with us in public!?!" followed by name calling.

That's not dialogue.

It's not discussion.

And it's not the way a reasoning, thinking people set about determing policy in a pluralistic society.

Edited by selek1, 01 May 2012 - 12:51 AM.

[sethpayne]

selek1, on 01 May 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

.....

And it's not the way a reasoning, thinking people set about determing policy in a pluralistic society.

I agree.  Radicals exist on both sides and these radicals make discourse difficult because of their antagonism and their desire not to add substantive ideas to the debate but rather, to be disruptive for its own sake.

The SSM debate should be dealt with strictly on the merits of each respective argument.  Any attempt to marginalize or silence any party to the debate should become cultural taboo.

[Kenngo1969]

sethpayne, on 01 May 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

I agree.  Radicals exist on both sides ...

If, by "both sides," you mean to put the Church of Jesus Christ on one side, then the difference is that one cannot swing a dead rat by the tail on one side without hitting a radical, while on the Church's side, one could throw that dead rat as far as one could ... and still hot hit a "radical."  Thanks fer playin'!

[wenglund]

LDSToronto, on 30 April 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

OK... now think of both in relation to you and your spouse. That relation can and does exist between same-sex couples and is just as real. H.

I can't tell from your somewhat tangential response whether you yet understand the important difference between love and sexuality. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

LDSToronto, on 30 April 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Ah, then your religious belief has little to no bearing on how others should live their lives. H.

Not exactly. Have you ever heard the phrase: "No man is an island"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

I can't tell from your somewhat tangential response whether you yet understand the important difference between love and sexuality. Do you?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Classic Wade. Coy and condescending.  


In this case, however, I am genuinely puzzled on what special insights you think you have to offer the public on the subjects of love and sexuality.

[wenglund]

Jaybear, on 01 May 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Classic Wade. Coy and condescending.  

In this case, however, I am genuinely puzzled on what special insights you think you have to offer the public on the subjects of love and sexuality.

I am deeply touched by the depth of humility and self-awareness and remarkable lack of hypocrisy in your response to me. I can see now that it was quite absurd for me to think that I could offer any insights, let alone special insights, to someone of your unapproachable intellectual caliber. I am entirely unworthy of your consideration and feel eternally indebted that you would even pay me the unwarranted courtesy of a drive-by, wave-of-the-hand dismissal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

I am deeply touched by the depth of humility and self-awareness and remarkable lack of hypocrisy in your response to me. I can see now that it was quite absurd for me to think that I could offer any insights, let alone special insights, to someone of your unapproachable intellectual caliber. I am entirely unworthy of your consideration and feel eternally indebted that you would even pay me the unwarranted courtesy of a drive-by, wave-of-the-hand dismissal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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 painstakenly avoided answering, all the while pretending to have key insight:

Quote

"Why not just be happy when someone finds love, regardless of gender?"

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?

[LDSToronto]

wenglund, on 01 May 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

I can't tell from your somewhat tangential response whether you yet understand the important difference between love and sexuality. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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?

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.

H.

[LDSToronto]

bump for wade - you've left a lot of questions unanswered.

[Storm Rider]

Jaybear, on 01 May 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

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?

[Senator]

Storm Rider, on 02 May 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

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.

[LDSToronto]

Storm Rider, on 02 May 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

[Jaybear]

Storm Rider, on 02 May 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

[Storm Rider]

Jaybear, on 02 May 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

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.

[Pa Pa]

smac97, on 22 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

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.

[wenglund]

Jaybear, on 01 May 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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, 02 May 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[wenglund]

LDSToronto, on 01 May 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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-

[Jaybear]

wenglund, on 02 May 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

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.