Becomming Straight

[Phillistine]

If you don't like the "consenting adults" morality, that's fine -- I honestly didn't think you'd find it sufficient, which is why I allowed for the fact that other people might want to add things to it. I was only offering it up because nothing else seems to me be something that people across faiths might be able to agree to. Certainly your morality, Pahoran, isn't accepted by everyone on the planet, no matter how much, you, Glatze, and his other supporters would like it to be. That's all I'm saying here. The onus is on you and selek to show how homosexuality is uncontroversially immoral.

I have a problem with "consenting adults" morality with respect to any issue. It's a fallacy of logic. Just because two or more people consent to do something doesn't make it moral or legal.

I've seen many a Latter-day Saint -- and not a few on this board -- fall back onto the "wull, the Church is true to me" position when it's clear that they have no solid basis for getting other people to believe it.

Fully agree. When this excuse is given, it usually means the end of any meaningful discussion because 'someone' has run out of logical arguments. This also stems from something deeper - usually an actual lack of belief because they don't want to investigate the truth further. I also believe that this reaction is quite unconscious and is offered in defense of something they hold very dear - faith.

Say what you will about homosexuality, but at the very worst, it only harms the participants. There's no reason whatsoever to put it in the same class as crack addiction. If you want to make a case explaining why it should be, go ahead, but the burden is certainly yours at this point. I feel compelled to add that I highly doubt that you'll succeed in your attempt. Good luck.

First, I doubt that there are any actions that we can take (homosexual or otherwise) that don't impact someone outside of our own little selves. There are actions that have direct and immediate impact on others and there are actions that have "eventual" consequences. I don't see where the comparison between homosexuality and substance addiction should be "offensive" to anyone. They're both done by people. Whether one is any "more moral" than the other comes down to a moral judgment. Many crack cocaine addicts are also productive members of society and don't harm other people per se. Are we saying that substance abusers are immoral?

You're entitled to believe that I am a spokesperson for immorality when I defend homosexuals. Just don't expect everyone on the planet to agree with your assessment, or even to take it at all seriously.

I see the nature of our disagreement now: I don't think that the erm, odd beliefs that you hold -- and which you have no compelling evidence for, I might add -- should dictate how the rest of the world lives their personal lives. You do. Okay -- fine. Tell me this, though: why should the other 99.95% of the people on this planet take you seriously, or even allow your opinion to be expressed?

While I'm not defending Pahoran, I don't see why his opinion couldn't be expressed. I also doubt that 99.95% of the "other people" see it your way, either. I believe there are a fairly large percentage that view homosexuality as at least "deviant behavior", if not as outright immorality. And therein lies the debate. I agree with Bach that someone's opinion of this type of orientation should not necessarily be forced on others.

In America, it takes a legislative process to turn morality into law. The king can't just decree it immoral. I know that many states and municipalities have laws against homosexual acts but these laws seem to be disappearing. Moreover, they really don't do any good in terms of changing people's orientation or behavior. Simply labeling homosexuals as immoral doesn't help either. Judging them, bashing them, and being generally unchristian isn't the answer. And maybe "converting them to homosexuality" isn't the answer either. God may have a plan for them just as He has one for heterosexuals. I really don't see how true love can be inherantly wrong.

Beyond that, I really don't have any answers. I just have to have faith that God loves all His children equally and that it will all work out for the best.

[Bach]

I have a problem with "consenting adults" morality with respect to any issue. It's a fallacy of logic. Just because two or more people consent to do something doesn't make it moral or legal.

Fine. That doesn't impinge upon what I've argued in this thread in the slightest.

First, I doubt that there are any actions that we can take (homosexual or otherwise) that don't impact someone outside of our own little selves. There are actions that have direct and immediate impact on others and there are actions that have "eventual" consequences. I don't see where the comparison between homosexuality and substance addiction should be "offensive" to anyone. They're both done by people. Whether one is any "more moral" than the other comes down to a moral judgment. Many crack cocaine addicts are also productive members of society and don't harm other people per se. Are we saying that substance abusers are immoral?

I'm saying that the case is a lot easier to make than that (practicing) homosexuals are immoral. Substance abusers present a very real danger to other people that homosexuals don't. There's a reason that Pahoran chose crack addicts as a group to compare homosexuals to, I think.

While I'm not defending Pahoran, I don't see why his opinion couldn't be expressed.

I don't, either; I'm just curious as to how he'd justify the belief that he should be able to say what he does. I suspect that he'd appeal to some kind of principle of liberality that would severely undercut the utter crap he's been spouting in this thread so far.

I also doubt that 99.95% of the "other people" see it your way, either. I believe there are a fairly large percentage that view homosexuality as at least "deviant behavior", if not as outright immorality.

Sure, but they don't believe those things because they share underlying basic beliefs with Pahoran. That's my point -- that Pahoran is kind of a lonely guy, when you consider how few people agree with him globally.

[Phillistine]

Not specifically those words. But Jude makes it quite clear that an important part of the reason was that they were "going after strange flesh." And the account in Genesis 19 prominently features the townsmen's demand to produce the two angels so that they might have homosexual relations with them. Other than that fact, the Genesis account doesn't appear to record any specific evil, so it is difficult to infer that there was something other than homosexuality that was the primary cause of the Lord's rath, when homosexuality is all that is mentioned.

And, of course, it has long generally been understood that "sodomy" was the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Sodomy" was coined by St. Peter Damian and included oral sex with the same or opposite gender, masturbation, **** sex with either gender, and sex with animals. "Going after strange flesh" seems to refer more to the act of buggary (sex with animals). And the mere act of taking someone against their will to do something with them constitutes a gross offense in my opinion.

So if Jude is correct, either the act of buggary or "sex with angels" would be the primary reason for the destruction; however, Ezekiel seems to have a somewhat different view:

â??Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.â? ('Ezekiel 16:49-50 KJV')

This view was shared by several Rabbinical sources during the early post-Christian era and well into the middle ages. Obviously, Ezekiel included "abomination" in the list, which seems to refer to their sexual practices. I would thus argue that homosexuality wasn't the "primary" sin and certainly wasn't the only sin for which they were destroyed.

It also stands to reason that a people would probably have to be much more seriously "abominable" than a "community of gays" for God to destroy them in such a manner; otherwise, there are a number of cities in the current generation that should have been brimstoned years ago. If anyone has "understood" the main reason to be homosexuality, it would be my opinion that their "understanding" is mistaken.

[Daniel2]

A lot has been said in this thread that warrents discussing. Much of it is rather overwhelming to me, given my current inability to spend hours trying to correct every misconception that seems to permiate almost every sentance of some posts... I will try to go through and correct some of those, as I am able (I am currently in Utah for the week of the fourth, spending some great time with my kids and family, so my time is limited, and I am typing most of during naptime or late at night!).

In keeping with the theme of this thread, I actually received a VERY relevant email from a list I subscribe to, directly dealing with Michael Glatze. I thought I'd post it here, for those that may find some or all of it interesting. I will try and follow up with some of the other comments, as I am able...

Please note: by sharing the following, I am not saying I agree or disagree with what this article is saying--I am sharing it because it is relevant and relates this whole thread to Mormonism on an entirely new level:

From The Ex-Gay Watch Homepage:

Glatze Is LDS Convert - Why the Silence?

Posted on July 5th, 2007 by Dave Rattigan

In a short interview with Warren Throckmorton published today, former gay youth activist and now ex-gay Michael Glatze confirmed that he was recently baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known popularly as the Mormons.

In the interview, which Throckmorton hints will be the first of several, Glatze denied rumours that he had been influenced by controversial self-help â??guruâ? Roy Masters, but did state that he was now a member of the LDS Church. This was not mentioned in the WND story, nor in any Christian media, and for a very obvious reason: The LDS Church is generally regarded by conservative evangelical and orthodox Christians as a heretical, non-Christian cult. For evangelicals, this kind of disclosure would ordinarily cast a cloud over, and more likely completely invalidate, a personâ??s claim to have met with and been changed by God.

Of his testimony, Glatze said:

I did not have any counseling or ministry help. That was not the way God wanted it, for me. For others, that may be the case. For me, it was all on my own, and with God. I spent nights, days, so much time alone, praying and â??giving up my willâ? to His.

Throckmorton elaborates:

One thing that seemed clear to me was that Michael wanted to convey that he has had an encounter with God. He said: â??What changed me was the words of Jesus.â?

Faith figures very large in Glatzeâ??s conversion. His description of nights and days â??alone,â? â??praying,â? and â??giving up [his] willâ? to God suggests a mystical or even miraculous process. He explicitly denies he received help from any person, whether religious or secular. God, Jesus and faith are not incidental to Glatzeâ??s testimony, but absolutely central to its claims. But which God and which Jesus? The evangelical position on whether Mormons are Christian has historically been very clear. The words of Chuck Colson are typical in this regard:

[No] Christian body, even those liberal ones, accepts Mormon baptism as valid. Itâ??s not a Christian baptism because Mormonism is not Christian.

Or again, from evangelical apologetics ministry CARM:

A [Mormon] has a false Jesus, and, therefore, a false hope of salvation.

So far, Exodus has wisely steered clear of endorsing Glatze. But this has not stopped other evangelicals from rushing in to validate Glatzeâ??s testimony, including the American Family News Network/One News Now, Peter LaBarbera at Americans for Truth, Stephen Bennett, Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America, and of course WorldNetDaily, who broke the story. In doing so, they have not simply validated a moral decision, but a religious experience that in any other context would be denounced as false.

Given the crucial nature of Glatzeâ??s religious experience to his testimony, how can evangelical leaders continue to hail Michael Glatze as an ex-gay success story without implicitly endorsing his religious beliefs?

To those ex-gay leaders who have been quick to endorse Glatze, XGW asks: Will you continue to endorse Michael Glatzeâ??s religious testimony now that it appears his Jesus is that of the Latter Day Saints?

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/07/glatz...hy-the-silence/

It is interesting to note that many of the board of directors of Ex-Gay organizations such as N.A.R.T.H. are also LDS.

More to follow, as time permits!

Daniel

P.S. I appreciate your compassionate comments and support, Bach! I am troubled that some still cannot see why it would be offensive to homosexuals to have their relationships compared to an individual addicted to a harmful substance. That some cannot see the distinction between a reciprocal, loving relationship between two consenting adults as opposed to an individual chemically depedant upon a drug (the drug being non-living, non-sentient, inanimate, and incapable of giving love, life, support, or anything back to it's user other than a chemical reaction) in this day and age still remains a mystery to me. In my eyes, homosexual couples have MUCH more in common with heterosexual couples than homosexual couples do with a "couple" consisting of a crack addict and his crack. In similar fashion, homosexual couples have just as much (or, to put it more accurately in my view, just as LITTLE) in common with "crack addicts" as heterosexual couples do... More on that, later, when I have the emotional energy and physical time to get through it!

[Phillistine]

Fine. That doesn't impinge upon what I've argued in this thread in the slightest.

I'm saying that the case is a lot easier to make than that (practicing) homosexuals are immoral. Substance abusers present a very real danger to other people that homosexuals don't. There's a reason that Pahoran chose crack addicts as a group to compare homosexuals to, I think.

I don't, either; I'm just curious as to how he'd justify the belief that he should be able to say what he does. I suspect that he'd appeal to some kind of principle of liberality that would severely undercut the utter crap he's been spouting in this thread so far.

Sure, but they don't believe those things because they share underlying basic beliefs with Pahoran. That's my point -- that Pahoran is kind of a lonely guy, when you consider how few people agree with him globally.

These clarifications make me more inclined to agree with you but without attacking Pahoran directly. I don't fully agree with his arguments but I think he makes them with some sincerity. His world view may be more limited, but then again, I'm quite certain mine is.

[Daniel2]

And thus refutes the claims that choice is not involved. that they cannot change. Which of course destroys the homosexual communities claims.

Everyone has a choice in life. To deny that is to insult all mankind.

Avatar4321, please see my comments to Selek, below, with regards to"the refut[ation] of choice" "destroying the homosexual communities claims." As you will see, I do not believe that "the homosexual community" denies that everyone is able to "make choices" in life, nor do I believe they "insult all mankind." I will give you a few examples of what I mean, as well.

Had Glatze been a crack addict and done precisely the same things- including the condemnations of the lifestyle- no one here would be condemning him.

But because this involves one's intimate choices and challenges the rationalizations heaped up to justify them, Glatze is subject to scorn and ridicule.

Glatze's primary sin in the eyes of the homosexual lobby (as opposed to those merely practicing the behavior) is that his is yet another voice raised to defy the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

Those two characteristics are the lynch pin of the current propoganda war and agenda. If they fail, the whole campaign fails. And by serving as living proof that the behavior and practice can be changed, he is a threat to their agenda.

And that is unforgiveable to the militant fringe.

Selek,

You obviously put a lot of thought, time, and effort into your post, which is appreciated. I, for one, would hope that all of us can have a civil, thought-provoking discourse on this subject.

For now, I'd like to focus on one aspect of your post (due to time limitations): this idea that "the homosexual lobby" is somehow threatened or angered by one man's decision to "turn away from homosexuality." You claim that the idea of choice is the "lynch pin of the current propoganda war and agenda," and that those of us who call for tolerance of gays and lesbians in society--as well as equal civil rights--allegedly depend on some "unchangeableness" of sexual activity to be a necessary foundation upon which to make our claims.

Selek, I believe you are wrong in making these sweeping assumptions about those of us in "the homosexual lobby," and I believe if one would start actually READING what gays and gay supporters are out there saying, you wouldn't see most of them claiming the types of things you believe they are claiming (I would pressume that there MAY be some who do.... but as a man who moves in gay circles, I certainly don't hear many of them).

Let me give you an example of what is being said, on one pro-gay blog I read, regarding this particular case, and see if you can spot a different attitude about tolerance, even for Michael Glatze's decisions on how to live his own life:

Glatze has every right to live as he chooses. However, it is tragic when a personal decision to refrain from homosexual behavior is used as an opportunity to slander an entire community. If Glatzeâ??s own chosen experience has been as ugly and unfulfilling as he describes, it is understandable that he has sought help â?? but it is sad that his story has become a platform for yet more prejudice and discrimination against those whose choices have been healthy and positive.

Most troubling is how Glatze uses his experience to call implicitly for a change in the law. When he writes that homosexuality is damaging â??as long as it remains â??acceptedâ? by law,â? how is that to be interpreted other than as a call to reverse equality laws? Towards the end of his column, he praises Polandâ??s leaders for resisting â??homosexual propagandaâ?; this just two days after the UKâ??s Observer newspaper reported that thousands of gay Poles have fled to Britain in an attempt to escape increasing persecution from the Polish Government.

Doubtless many in the ex-gay movements will have us believe we are intolerant in criticizing Glatze. It is not his personal decision to change his behavior that we denounce, however. In Glatzeâ??s championing of prejudice and discrimination, and his slander of millions of gay and lesbians, his words fully deserve the condemnation not only of gays and lesbians, but people of conscience everywhere, whether straight, gay or ex-gay.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/07/2531/#comment-26499

The comment was made by a supporter of Michael Glatze, on www.exgaywatch.com, that "It is truly amazing the scorn and hatred being poured upon Glatze because he didnâ??t make the same life-choices as some of the commentators," to which another openly gay man said:

Obviously you didnâ??t bother to do even a cursory content analysis. Someone did after reading your allegationâ?¦ here, using their usual method. And quickly stopped bothering after it revealed a situation nothing like you had claimed.

Note: didnâ??t find a single person scorning Glatze at XGW for his â??life-choicesâ?. We donâ??t care.

The overwhelming majority of people were, however, mighty pissed of about the anti-gay abuse directed at themselves from Glatze, they questioned his motivation for the statement etc, and they didnâ??t think his tirade was ultimately going to be very helpful for exgays.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/07/glatz.../#comment-26635

(Bold added on both comments)

Can you see how the above comments differ from your assumptions about what Michael Glatze's change of heart (and LDS conversion) means to many gays and lesbians?

The desire for social toleratance of individuals' rights to live in homosexual relationship, as well as civil rights involving such relationships, is NOT dependant upon "unchangeableness." While "unchangeableness" regarding sexual orienation certainly moves some people to more compassionate views on the subject, it is NOT the lynch pin that some apparently make it out to be.

Religion is CERTAINLY a "changeable state," and yet our society has protected the individual rights of divergent and contrary religions, even recognizing the civil rights and relationships of differing religions. In the same way, "the homosexual lobby" does not depend on "unchangeableness" any more or less than the religious rights of a Catholic who converts to Mormonism depend upon "unchangeableness," or vice verse.

As I (and others in the "pro-gay" camp) have repeatedly said (contrary to the inaccurate brush you would paint us with), I support Michael Glatze's choices to live his life as he sees fit, and wish him well in that regard. Unfortunately, Mr. Glatze does not extend to others like me the same courtesy. THAT is where the problem lies, NOT in his decision to "leave homosexuality" (whatever that may mean).

Hope that helps clarify,

Daniel

[Daniel2]

His former association claims that they have no control over their actions? CFR please. Claiming that they believe their attractions are inborn is different than claiming it's impossible to go against their tendencies. Many have done what this fellow has done, and I assume that is known by many homosexuals. I think your argument is based on a strawman,

You've hit the nail on the head, Cacheman! I still can't believe that many out there are arguing that gays make that claim that we "have no control over our actions," or that we don't "have any choice." I personally do not know ANY gays and lesbians who claim these things. All the gay acquaintances that I know do NOT hold the idea that "we can't chooose our actions," or even "that we are powerless in how to respond to sexual urges" (as many have pointed out on either side of the dicussion, whether or not one can change one's sexual orienation is a different issue, entirely, and is ultimately irrelevant to the point). For those of us who choose to embrace our homosexual natures, the issue, simply, is that we choose how we can respond to our inner nature, and we do not see religious or Biblical condemnation of such behaviors as motivation upon which to base the denial of a chance at a loving, reciprocal relationship with another human being of our same gender within our lifetime.

For those that do find motivation in religious prohibitions of such relationships and activities, more power to them! They should chooose whatever they want to do: to be celibate. Deny themselve those urges, relationships, and activites. Each can follow the religious dictates in his or her heart to "Pick up [one's] cross." Those of us who make other choices, however, have the same right to choose to live and believe "how, where, and what we may," as well as expecting our government to provide the equal civil rights to us and our relationships as contributing, non-violent citizens of our communities.

My view,

Daniel

[LifeOnaPlate]

Those of us who make other choices, however, have the same right to choose to live and believe "how, where, and what we may," as well as expecting our government to provide the equal civil rights to us and our relationships as contributing, non-violent citizens of our communities.

My view,

Daniel

"How where or what they may" as stated in the articles of faith was in regards to the worship of God, not sex, politics, etc. I'm not sounding off on the gay issue, just seeking to clarify the paraphrased quote.

[USU78]

After reading through this thread, the response that comes most to my mind, as a post-Mormon, now openly-gay man, is the example displayed in a passage from Luke 23:

Ecce homo! Dan'l hath been nailed to yet another cross by yet another vile mishomoistic homophobic ratcatcher of a sneering but inexcusable excuse for a human being.

USU "Irony enriched today" 78

Somehow I doubt the guy was ever really gay.

Ahhhh . . . the "No True Scotsman" phallacy.

[Daniel2]

Ecce homo! Dan'l hath been nailed to yet another cross by yet another vile mishomoistic homophobic ratcatcher of a sneering but inexcusable excuse for a human being.

USU "Irony enriched today" 78

Ahhhh . . . the "No True Scotsman" phallacy.

Hi, USU,

My quotation of the scripture was not to claim "vicitmization" on par with Christ, nor do denegrade anyone with the epithets you seem hell-bend on forcing into my mouth. In fact, my intention was exactly the opposite: to follow a metephorical archetype's example of forgiving those who, in the case of this thread, say a lot of judgemental things without seeming to have a full understanding of what they are passing judgement on.

For what it's worth: I have not personally believed in Christ as a literal, historical figure for quite some time. I continue to see much relevance and value in learning about the parable which is The Bible. Given that it (along with The Book of Mormon) comprises the mythological framework of my childhood and formative years, that is the reason for which I still frequently quote it.

Nope... it is rare that you will ever hear the word "homophobe" cross my lips (or see it typed in my posts) as an insult hurled at someone else as an attempt to silence or demean him or her, nor would I ever jump to the conclusion of thinking someone else is "a lesser excuse for a human being." Your insinuation that I must view others that way is unfounded.

I hope that instead of trying to belittle someone who quotes scripture (which seems to me to be a distraction from the relevant issues), we can actually DISCUSS the issues. I have raised several points in this thread. Sadly, many seem to abandon these threads when salient counterpoints are brought up. I hope that will not be the case, here.

Thanks,

Daniel

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I agree with Bach- "lusting in one's heart" is not a quick peek at a passing fanny - it's far more involved.

The word 'fanny' means something quite different in the UK! ...I nearly fell off my chair when I saw this!

...but anyway - assuming we are talking about a homosexual checking out a - ehem - 'backside', the act would technically be a homosexual act if the 'motive' behind the glance was sexual. Whether it is a 'sin' is another matter. I can't comment on that, because the term doesn't mean anything to me. I know 'right' and 'wrong'. But sin is a religious concept...

Had Glatze been a crack addict and done precisely the same things- including the condemnations of the lifestyle- no one here would be condemning him.

While others have taken offense at this comparison, I don't find it offensive at all. I think it's a very good, clear parallel that is used to make a very valid point. And one that deserves inspection.

I would not go so far as to say that there would be no one 'condemning' somebody who 'comdemned' other crack addicts. I may! It would entirely depend on exactly what they had to say. Perhaps you have an example in mind - that we can use as a case in point?

He has turned away from a practice and a behavior that is demonstrably unhealthy

CFR. I would certainly like to see facts and figures that would equate the ill-effects of homosexuality (and note - homosexuality is not 'unsafe sex') with the regular use of crack cocaine.

Glatze's primary sin in the eyes of the homosexual lobby (as opposed to those merely practicing the behavior) is that his is yet another voice raised to defy the idea that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

Well, I can't speak for this so-called 'homosexual lobby' (Unless you think I'm part of it, whether I'm aware of it or not), but I - for one - don't beleive that Glatze has sinned in any way. Again, this idea of 'sinning' means nothing to me.

If you mean I think he's done 'something wrong' - well. Homosexuality is not always innate, and clearly not always immutable. So if this IS what Glatze is saying, then he doesn't have my condemnation. He has my agreement.

I think Glatze said a bit more than that though - didn't he...

Those two characteristics are the lynch pin of the current propoganda war and agenda

Using the words 'propoganda', 'war' and 'agenda' don't make your essential points any better, more evidenced or more logical.

And by serving as living proof that the behavior and practice can be changed, he is a threat to their agenda.

Who doesn't know the practise can be changed? Anybody in this thread? I don't think so...

Catholic priests who take a vow of celibacy usually still have sex drives.

Most - or probably all - of the monks I linked to earlier will still have distinct sex drives.

You can have an innate drive, and yet deny it. Who exactly denies this?

Who are you talking to selek?

And that is unforgiveable to the militant fringe.

True. 'Militant fringes' aren't well known for their forgiving natures.

For the record, the science on the issue of homosexual desire is far from settled- and barely in the same solar system with the propoganda pronouncements being made by both sides of the argument.

I think the scientific evidence is a lot clearer than some would like to admit.

Even N.A.R.T.H findings clearly point towards deep, innate drives that are very difficult to overcome.

Inborn does not equal 'genetic'.

That is my main problem with the current push. By proclaiming that the behavior is both innate and immutable

Again - who are you talking about here?

that those in the lifestyle cannot choose for themselves and in many instances cannot help themselves

If their saying that their 'innate drive' is beyond their choice, then what evidence do you have that they are wrong?

Are you sure you aren't mis-understanding what people are saying?

The argument itself dehumanizes those it purports to help.

I'd be very careful you're responding to the actual argument being put forward before going further with this.

Homosexual desire may indeed be innate, just as alchoholism, certain types of obesity, and many other physical afflictions are.

Indeed. And note - innate doesn't equal 'moral'.

The only reason to talk about how 'innate' the homosexual drives / feelings are is to talk about the difficulty of controlling / overcoming them, and / or how reasonable it is to ask homosexuals to deny them - for the rest of their lives if nessesary.

That particular point has got nothing to do with whether homosexual acts are 'immoral' or not.

NOTE: I'm not saying that the morality of homsoexuality isn't important. I'm just saying that people often try and bleed the two issue together -as if they are one issue. They are not. They are two seperate issues.

[solomarineris]

We have no responsibility to "prove" anything to anybody. Our responsibility is to "testify and warn the people." Once we have done that, we have done our part. The Holy Ghost bears witness that our testimony is true, at which point the hearer is responsible for how they respond.

Is that clear now?

Regards,

Pahoran

Response

Oh my, Phoran..

We come a long way from blowing up the mega-cities for their wickedness, parting the seas to run from evil kings and raising the dead.

Now we relegated all those stark exhibitions of God to a Holy Gost who'se whipers most of us cannot hear or tune in...

If there was any "right" time to demolish a City, I cannot see a better time than now.

San Fransisco, Manhattan, Berlin, Tokyo or Amsterdam could all be candidates for God's fury.

All the best

[Bach]

While others have taken offense at [the homosexual/drug addict] comparison, I don't find it offensive at all. I think it's a very good, clear parallel that is used to make a very valid point. And one that deserves inspection.

Where are the clear parallels that you see, Renegade? There are similarities, sure, but the disanalogies are substantial as well, in my view.

[SolarPowered]

CFR. I would certainly like to see facts and figures that would equate the ill-effects of homosexuality (and note - homosexuality is not 'unsafe sex') with the regular use of crack cocaine.

I'm not the person you're CFRing. However, I did see something yesterday on exactly this point which really surprised me about just how unhealthy homosexuality apparently is:

Of course, the promulgation of knowledge and data concerning the link between alternative sex and disease is hampered by the bullying tactics of the elite. Thus, only a few facts are known at all to some of the public (such as the results of a study in Scandinavia showing that men in same-sex marriages die 24 years earlier than their counterparts in the general population), and these facts aren't mainstream, thanks to the media blackout on this issue and the muzzling of opponents under color of law. And that, in turn, is thanks to the activists.

This is from: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56545 (I don't really buy off on what that editorialist is saying in general, but I have no cause to think that he is misrepresenting the Scandinavian study.)

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Where are the clear parallels that you see, Renegade? There are similarities, sure, but the disanalogies are substantial as well, in my view.

Oh - don't get me wrong. I don't think the analogies are 'that' close. But their 'comparable'. Certainly when considering the Libertarian point of view.

Crack addicts don't nessesarily infringe upon the rights of others by using crack cocaine. Of course, there are situations where this quite obviously isn't the case. A parent who is raising a child whilst addicted to crack cocaine should be a worrying situation to anybody I would have thought.

...but what about the person who has the addiction but lives alone, never tries to get anybody else to join them in their habits and doesn't attempt to drive etc. whilst 'not being fit' to.

...we can make an obvious case to why it's unhealthy - but what case would you make to call it 'immoral'? And if you do find a case for it to be catagorised as 'immoral', then how would you apply the same logic to the case of a homosexual, and declare them 'moral'?

I'm not trying to say that I think the two situations are practically equivalent, morally or otherwise. I'm saying that it's a perfectly legitamte comparison to make, and discuss. Especially when it comes to the morality of the situations.

Besides, considering that I often hear homosexuals being lumped in with liars, thieves and murderers (the main rationale seeming to be this 'sin' concept...), I personally find this particular comparison rather tame tbh!

(I don't really buy off on what that editorialist is saying in general, but I have no cause to think that he is misrepresenting the Scandinavian study.)

I'd like to see the details of the study, rather than somebody's 'summary' of it.

Sorry, but I've seen way too many of these kinds of 'claims' fall apart once even a little time is spent looking at the actual figures.

[SolarPowered]

Sorry, but I've seen way too many of these kinds of 'claims' fall apart once even a little time is spent looking at the actual figures.

I was thinking about that after I posted. Scaninavia hasn't had "same-sex marriage" for all that long, and I can't imagine that there are really all that many of them, which makes me wonder how they would be able to come up with statistically-valid data for such a study. I wish the guy I quoted had footnoted the study.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I was thinking about that after I posted. Scaninavia hasn't had "same-sex marriage" for all that long, and I can't imagine that there are really all that many of them, which makes me wonder how they would be able to come up with statistically-valid data for such a study. I wish the guy I quoted had footnoted the study.

Sure - understood. If you do find more details, I'd be interested in hearing more about it...

[kurtlein]

I always think it is amazing that society, the medical world, etc can accept the fact that Alcoholism can be either genetically or environmentally generated and overcome but not homosexuality; they like to play the "genetics" card and thus relinquish any responsibility. We don't tell Alcoholics to "live out your alcoholism, march in Alcoholics Pride Parades, hang out in bars and expose yourself to as much alcohol as you can!" We tell them to avoid alcohol, even the presence of alcohol; why is the same treatment of the one not applied to both? If Alcoholism is genetic or environmental we encourage, and have organizations, to help them overcome this problem. With homosexuality the "causes" are the same but society wants nothing to do with helping them overcome the problem, in fact, those who do attempt this are labeled "homophobes" and attacked from virtually every angle. They argue that homosexuality cannot be cured, neither can Alcoholism; it is a daily struggle which is OK for alcoholics but not for homosexuals? Double-standard IMO. Sin is sin, evil is evil and no amount of liberal/worldly euphamisms can change that.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

If an alchoholic affects others against their will on account of alchohol, then they have a moral requirement to control their alchoholism.

If an alchoholic cannot function in the way they want to because of their alchoholism, then of course it's sensible for them to seek 'help'. (At least, assuming that the requirement in the first place is 'sensible'...)

I beleive the same should be true for homosexuals. Or anybody else for that matter.

What anybody else believes is their own business.

[Son]

Son,

I certainly respect your right to believe that God has expressed his opinion on the matter of homosexual relationships.

There are many other people who happen to believe that God has a different view than the one you claim he has given, including your assertion that "two whole cities" were "evaporated."

I, for one, bear testimony that love produces an amazing amount of beautiful, life-affirming, uplifting 'fruit'--including the love expressed within homosexual relationships.

In addition, my experience with gay relationships provides me with a different understanding than yours: while sexuality in any orientation has the potential to be "animal" in some of it's manifestations, homosexual relationships are not "animal" by default any more or less than heterosexual relationships are.

Finally, while homosexual attractions may very well be against your "natural affection," they are very "natural" for those of us who experience them.

As long as individuals such as yourselfs ignorantly rail against something of which you have no first-hand experience in the name of God, eternal salvation, and the avoidance of divine condemnation, I also agree that those who are gay and simultaneously follow such philosophies will have a long, painful road ahead, as they continue to completely deny their own innate, god-given, and very natural affections.

Thanks for sharing your views,

Daniel

hey Daniel,

I appreciate your being able to dialogue, many of the gays I know and love have courage regarding their specific challenge of being a minority, but some are fragile and confused and my prayers are always for them.

I would like to touch on the word love. It obviously is for all of us, gay and straight. It is a gift of God.

Love (Charity) the pure love of Christ.

Within the Pure love of Christ is a tenderness and compassion and sacrafice of self that is way beyond sex.

Sex is not love, it is too self serving for all involved to be defined as something so great as the pure love of Christ.

Love between man and woman, and man and man, and woman and woman, is never discouraged or vile. It is always a glorifying attribute that brings joy to our Heavenly Father.

Sex on the other hand is always selfish, even if it is being done to please someone else, it is always pleasing the self. It is animal and something to be overcome. Straight or gay.

It is ordained between a man and woman for specific purposes, the primary is to procreate. The secondary is for physical pleasure. When the secondary becomes primary the spirit is grieved, the growth is stagnated. THis I am very aware of, It is not everyone's trial, but many in this day have this challenge given to them to overcome and become strong.

Media, intoxicants and other forms of enter-tainment have amplified the importance of sensualism in moderm western society. "If it feels good- do it". What a great slogan for Satan to make it all okay.

Charity doth not behave itself unseemingly. It is not self seeking.

I am ignorant to some things regarding this world, this is not one of them.

son

[Tchild2]

Whatever.

First, I didn't know that Christianity scared people.

Second, many Christians act as though they had no conscience, while many non-Christians act as though they had a high conscience.

Third, we Christians are not allowed to judge what is in someone else's heart, and yet, this guy does it twice: not only does he say that everybody knows "the truth", but also that those who refuse Christianity do it because they don't want to act according to their conscience! So much for being a Christian!

CFR. I happen to have lived in two European countries so far, and I have never noticed that grade-school kids are being made to read "gay children's books".

This is it. This guy has completely lost my confidence. Not only is he judging other people's hearts, but he's outright lying about my corner of the world in order to make his point in his corner of the world. Disgusting.

Del March, your ability to see outside of the religio-centric viewpoint is refreshing, and is quite frankly, a great credit to your religion's ability to create believers of rational and balanced thinking.

[Daniel2]

"How where or what they may" as stated in the articles of faith was in regards to the worship of God, not sex, politics, etc. I'm not sounding off on the gay issue, just seeking to clarify the paraphrased quote.

Hi, LifeOnaPlate,

As a 30-year member within the LDS church, I am very familiar with the context of the Articles of Faith. I used the quotation with the full knowledge of what I was doing. I maintain that it's use is applicable, merely because a loving relationship between two people (usually solemnized by "marriage") is, for many religions, one of life's most holy, sacred, 'sacraments'--it is an act of religious worship in it's most potent and binding form. For many of us who are gay, the act of chosing a spouse is just as religious in nature. While I do not believe in an external god figure, I believe that divinity may be found within each individual, and, as such, "worship God" through tapping into the best, most exating parts of my own human nature--including a celebration of love, compassion, self-sacrifice, patience, etc. that comes from learing to abundantly love another human being. Given that understanding, I intentionally used the paraphrased Article of Faith, because I believe it beautifully illustrates the need for each of us to worship god "how, where, and what [we] may." (bold added).

Thanks for the chance to clarify,

Daniel

Del March, your ability to see outside of the religio-centric viewpoint is refreshing, and is quite frankly, a great credit to your religion's ability to create believers of rational and balanced thinking.

I heartily agree, Tchild.

Kudos to you, Del.

Daniel

[Daniel2]

Hi, Son,

I also appreciate our mutual ability to dialogue on the subject. I hope the discussion continues, and that we all learn from each other. Thanks for the continued opportunities to do so. I am grateful for your love and concern for your gay acquaintances. Sometimes, the most challenging parts of loving others and being concerned for their welfare is knowing how to express that love, as well as simultaneously loving them enough to respect their agency after having lived up to one's religious convictions to 'warn' them of what one may perceive as 'sinful.'

I would like to touch on the word love. It obviously is for all of us, gay and straight. It is a gift of God.

Love (Charity) the pure love of Christ.

I agree: love is certainly the key to understanding the best within human relationships. I am glad that you believe that love "is for all of us, gay and straight." I also would poetically call it "a gift from god," though I believe the giver of that gift is the divine self within each of us, rather than an external and/or independant being or force outside of ourselves.

I think my disagreement begins when you start defining real love as something that exists only as related to "Christ." I am aware that many Christians give the Christian God or Jesus credit even for non-believers' love, even as the non-believers are unaware or refuse to acknowledge the God-giver of the gift of love. Usually, they will respond by saying something like, "Well, just because you refuse to acknowledge that God gives you love doesn't mean that He isn't there, or that the fact that He is responsible for your love isn't true."

I have no interest in trying to change yours or anyone else's religious beliefs about the source of love, but merely wanted to point out that that will probably be a problamatic divide over which we may not be able to disagree. I'm not sure if there is a way to span that particular chasm regarding "the source and/or nature of love," other than to agree to disagree.

Within the Pure love of Christ is a tenderness and compassion and sacrafice of self that is way beyond sex.

Sex is not love, it is too self serving for all involved to be defined as something so great as the pure love of Christ.

Love between man and woman, and man and man, and woman and woman, is never discouraged or vile. It is always a glorifying attribute that brings joy to our Heavenly Father.

I agree with almost everything you say above, with a slightly different twist. Of course, that "twist" may make all the difference in your eyes, given that your paradigm is infused with the motivating presence of the Christian God. Here's how I would say what I believe to be very similar things, but seen through the lense of my Untiarian Universalism ideals:

Pure love is a tenderness and compassion and sacrafice of self that is way beyond sex.

Sex is not the same thing as love, it may be too self serving for all involved to be defined as something so great as pure love. Sexual relationships, however, can be a shared reflection of the real love between two people.

Shared Love between man and woman, and man and man, and woman and woman, is never discouraged or vile. It is always a glorifying attribute that brings joy to those sharing and experiencing it, and it is, perhaps, the most exalting emotion which brings out the divinity within two individuals so united.

Sex on the other hand is always selfish, even if it is being done to please someone else, it is always pleasing the self. It is animal and something to be overcome. Straight or gay.

And here is where we come to what I believe would be our first major disagreement. I understand that many branches of the Orthodox Christian movement believe Sex is something that is carnal, sensual, and animalistic. Knowing you are not LDS, I also wanted to point out for the benefit of anyone else reading that I do not believe Latter-day Saints share your same view that "sexi is always selfish, even if it is done to please someone else; it is animal and something to be overcome." Mormons believe that sexual relationships are pleasurable with a dual purpose: to procreate and to enhance loving bonds between spouses.

My beliefs, having been influenced by my own Mormon past, as well as my current religious ideals, fall more in keeping with that idea: for straight couples, children may result from loving, sexual relationships. For many couples, gay or straight, sexual relationships can serve to be selfless, giving expressions of that Pure Love we were speaking about, earlier. While I believe that sex can sometimes reflect an "animalistic" drive, and should be controlled and only expressed in appropriate ways and times, I think the statement that "it is something to be overcome" is too broad for me to support. Of course, most Latter-day Saints would disagree with me on how same-gender sexual expressions should be expressed and that they could ever be appropriate, at all.

It is ordained between a man and woman for specific purposes, the primary is to procreate. The secondary is for physical pleasure. When the secondary becomes primary the spirit is grieved, the growth is stagnated. THis I am very aware of, It is not everyone's trial, but many in this day have this challenge given to them to overcome and become strong.

This is a more dogmatic approach to sexuality, dividing it into acceptable peices based on motivation, that I also don't subscribe to.

Media, intoxicants and other forms of enter-tainment have amplified the importance of sensualism in moderm western society. "If it feels good- do it". What a great slogan for Satan to make it all okay.

I can agree with much of what you say, in the above portion. While I do not believe in a literal Satan, I think compassion and respect for others and ourselves should be our guiding light.

Charity doth not behave itself unseemingly. It is not self seeking.

Not sure how I feel about this.... my initial reaction is to say that sometimes, love behaves unseemingly.... and that oftentimes, it is not self-seeking--but neither is constantly nor universally true.

I, too, am not ignorant with regards to love... but it's depths and nuances are things that I hope to continually be able to further probe, understand, experience, and explore better throughout the course of my life.

My views,

Daniel

[Son]

Hi, Son,

I also appreciate our mutual ability to dialogue on the subject. I hope the discussion continues, and that we all learn from each other. Thanks for the continued opportunities to do so. I am grateful for your love and concern for your gay acquaintances. Sometimes, the most challenging parts of loving others and being concerned for their welfare is knowing how to express that love, as well as simultaneously loving them enough to respect their agency after having lived up to one's religious convictions to 'warn' them of what one may perceive as 'sinful.'

I agree: love is certainly the key to understanding the best within human relationships. I am glad that you believe that love "is for all of us, gay and straight." I also would poetically call it "a gift from god," though I believe the giver of that gift is the divine self within each of us, rather than an external and/or independant being or force outside of ourselves.

I think my disagreement begins when you start defining real love as something that exists only as related to "Christ." I am aware that many Christians give the Christian God or Jesus credit even for non-believers' love, even as the non-believers are unaware or refuse to acknowledge the God-giver of the gift of love. Usually, they will respond by saying something like, "Well, just because you refuse to acknowledge that God gives you love doesn't mean that He isn't there, or that the fact that He is responsible for your love isn't true."

I have no interest in trying to change yours or anyone else's religious beliefs about the source of love, but merely wanted to point out that that will probably be a problamatic divide over which we may not be able to disagree. I'm not sure if there is a way to span that particular chasm regarding "the source and/or nature of love," other than to agree to disagree.

I agree with almost everything you say above, with a slightly different twist. Of course, that "twist" may make all the difference in your eyes, given that your paradigm is infused with the motivating presence of the Christian God. Here's how I would say what I believe to be very similar things, but seen through the lense of my Untiarian Universalism ideals:

Pure love is a tenderness and compassion and sacrafice of self that is way beyond sex.

Sex is not the same thing as love, it may be too self serving for all involved to be defined as something so great as pure love. Sexual relationships, however, can be a shared reflection of the real love between two people.

Shared Love between man and woman, and man and man, and woman and woman, is never discouraged or vile. It is always a glorifying attribute that brings joy to those sharing and experiencing it, and it is, perhaps, the most exalting emotion which brings out the divinity within two individuals so united.

And here is where we come to what I believe would be our first major disagreement. I understand that many branches of the Orthodox Christian movement believe Sex is something that is carnal, sensual, and animalistic. Knowing you are not LDS, I also wanted to point out for the benefit of anyone else reading that I do not believe Latter-day Saints share your same view that "sexi is always selfish, even if it is done to please someone else; it is animal and something to be overcome." Mormons believe that sexual relationships are pleasurable with a dual purpose: to procreate and to enhance loving bonds between spouses.

My beliefs, having been influenced by my own Mormon past, as well as my current religious ideals, fall more in keeping with that idea: for straight couples, children may result from loving, sexual relationships. For many couples, gay or straight, sexual relationships can serve to be selfless, giving expressions of that Pure Love we were speaking about, earlier. While I believe that sex can sometimes reflect an "animalistic" drive, and should be controlled and only expressed in appropriate ways and times, I think the statement that "it is something to be overcome" is too broad for me to support. Of course, most Latter-day Saints would disagree with me on how same-gender sexual expressions should be expressed and that they could ever be appropriate, at all.

This is a more dogmatic approach to sexuality, dividing it into acceptable peices based on motivation, that I also don't subscribe to.

I can agree with much of what you say, in the above portion. While I do not believe in a literal Satan, I think compassion and respect for others and ourselves should be our guiding light.

Not sure how I feel about this.... my initial reaction is to say that sometimes, love behaves unseemingly.... and that oftentimes, it is not self-seeking--but neither is constantly nor universally true.

I, too, am not ignorant with regards to love... but it's depths and nuances are things that I hope to continually be able to further probe, understand, experience, and explore better throughout the course of my life.

My views,

Daniel

Thanks, Daniel

I see you are thoughtful with your approach to human relations.

Just wanted to express when I say Christ it is not necessarily excluding any religion based in love. Christ to me is not just the Son of God, but the force that is given to abide in everyone that comes to earth. Regardless of our sect affilliations, what I believe is that we are given at least 7 weaknesses to overcome. THat we might become strong, and glorious.

To me love is an energy that is expressed with or without physical contact. That said, it is certainly possible to express love vibration during sex. But somehow it becomes weaker and dissipated for a time after the act.

When celibacy is practiced for a time, and love is expressed in non sexual ways, it always builds and grows, without any dissipation. Especially when I add emotional energy.

Since I have read that we send out hate with such force and that we need to send out love with the same concentration for it to edify and grow to where we can handle and wield more love, it has become quite a remarkable journey.

If you ever get the chance to experiment with that I wonder if you would have the same outcome as I have had.

son

[Pahoran]

Fine. That doesn't impinge upon what I've argued in this thread in the slightest.

Actually it does.

You assumed that everyone accepts "consenting adults" as a shared moral criterion. Your assumption was simply wrong.

I'm saying that the case is a lot easier to make than that (practicing) homosexuals are immoral. Substance abusers present a very real danger to other people that homosexuals don't. There's a reason that Pahoran chose crack addicts as a group to compare homosexuals to, I think.

Not only that, but you know precisely what that reason was.

1) On July 5 at 8:46 am, Selek wrote:

Had Glatze been a crack addict and done precisely the same things- including the condemnations of the lifestyle- no one here would be condemning him.

2) To which you replied, at 5:41 pm that same day:

It's possible to engage in homosexual behavior and still be a functioning, contributing member of society. The same is not true of crack addicts. Your comparison here is inapt -- and highly offensive.

3) To which I replied:

To crack addicts, I suppose it is.

As you perfectly well know, and contrary to what you have tried to pretend, I did not introduce crack addicts into the discussion; nor did I "choose crack addicts as a group to compare homosexuals to." I chose to stick a pin in your pompous moralising bloviations.

Which is probably what really offended you.

I don't, either; I'm just curious as to how he'd justify the belief that he should be able to say what he does. I suspect that he'd appeal to some kind of principle of liberality that would severely undercut the utter crap he's been spouting in this thread so far.

I fail entirely to see how freedom of speech has anything at all to do with the morality of homosexual acts. Care to explain it to me?

Sure, but they don't believe those things because they share underlying basic beliefs with Pahoran. That's my point -- that Pahoran is kind of a lonely guy, when you consider how few people agree with him globally.

Not that I'd expect you to know, or even be capable of grasping this, Bach, but if there is or ever could be such a thing as absolute morality, its validity would have absolutely nothing to do with its popularity.

Regards,

Pahoran