bookofmormontruth Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Jeff, this exchange has made one thing abundantly clear. You are stupid.Good night.H.Don't worry Jeff, he was just being sarcastic.
Duncan Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I totally agree, we are missing out on their spiritual gifts. My sister is the nicest person on the planet - we miss out on that and how she blesses those around her.But more importantly, our gay neighbors, my sister and friends are missing out on the blessings that the Lord's Church offers. Yes, it is hard and requires sacrifice. Sacrifices to give up the natural man and tendencies to sin, but all worth it in the end. To me, that is sadder than anything else because there are eternal consequences.And I hate to break the news, but there will never be an "acceptance" or "agreement" of sin in any of its forms. And yes, the world will hate us for it. And you know full well, anyone is welcome to attend Church.In additions, my fiance thinks I am nuts because I am not a "hugger". I fake hugs and I don't like giving hugs to every flippin person in the room, but I am okay with that because I am not defined by my hugs and revolve my life around them. Unfortunately, sexual orientation becomes the center of someone's life in everything they do and they miss the eternal picture.[/quoI agree with you mostly, the Church seems to have developed OCD when it comes to chastity though, gay or straight! What does the Church offer gay people? I dunno. Not with our stellar history with those of the gay community. They have no hope for any sexual contact in this life, your sexual orientation supposedly changing in the next life even though the same spirit that you leave this life with goes with in the next. I realize that almost the same is for singles as well and we wonder why they leave? I think the Stake President probably reacted to when this Call fellow took his daughters to Bingo, hopefully not thinking that associating with gay people will make one gay-but I understand its human to protect your kids even from the evils of bingo!
bookofmormontruth Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I agree with you mostly, the Church seems to have developed OCD when it comes to chastity though, gay or straight! What does the Church offer gay people? I dunno. Not with our stellar history with those of the gay community. They have no hope for any sexual contact in this life, your sexual orientation supposedly changing in the next life even though the same spirit that you leave this life with goes with in the next. I realize that almost the same is for singles as well and we wonder why they leave? I think the Stake President probably reacted to when this Call fellow took his daughters to Bingo, hopefully not thinking that associating with gay people will make one gay-but I understand its human to protect your kids even from the evils of bingo!The law of chastity hasn't "developed". It has always been around. And most people who join the Lord's Church, know what they are getting into since the law of chastity is taught to them.Why do we have to call them "gay people"? Why can't we just say the Lord's Church offers everything to all people? The Lord's Church doesn't have to change to accommodate people.And this might sound insensitive, but I don't feel sorry for people that they can't have sexual encounters, yes it is a big challenge in life. Single people in the Lord's Church stay celibate and sisters who do not marry their entire life stay celibate. Yes, a lot leave when single, but some don't - I never left and I stayed celibate my entire life which has been a flippin long time. It is possible, not easy at all, but in the end it is always worth it. Besides, we have the eternities for things we miss out here on earth. It is always about eternal perspective - not what carnally pleases us in the moment.You don't have to answer, but just wondering - are you LDS or were?
Jeff K. Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 The church offers gay people what it offers everyone. The pure love of Christ, the opportunity to return to heavenly father, guidance in controlling our natural man as we assimilate the spiritual through trial and repentance. Their path is admittedly harder, from my perspective, but it comes down to what is more important and what we want to sacrifice. Is that vision sufficient for us, or do we reject it for something temporary but infinitely less permanent?
Duncan Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 The law of chastity hasn't "developed". It has always been around. And most people who join the Lord's Church, know what they are getting into since the law of chastity is taught to them.Why do we have to call them "gay people"? Why can't we just say the Lord's Church offers everything to all people? The Lord's Church doesn't have to change to accommodate people.And this might sound insensitive, but I don't feel sorry for people that they can't have sexual encounters, yes it is a big challenge in life. Single people in the Lord's Church stay celibate and sisters who do not marry their entire life stay celibate. Yes, a lot leave when single, but some don't - I never left and I stayed celibate my entire life which has been a flippin long time. It is possible, not easy at all, but in the end it is always worth it. Besides, we have the eternities for things we miss out here on earth. It is always about eternal perspective - not what carnally pleases us in the moment.You don't have to answer, but just wondering - are you LDS or were?yes, I am LDS and very active
bookofmormontruth Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 yes, I am LDS and very activeWhy? You definitely don't put the Lord's Church in a good light - at least from your last comment.
Duncan Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Why? You definitely don't put the Lord's Church in a good light - at least from your last comment.Why am I active? Lots of reasons, I don't see our Church and members and the gay community having a great relationship and neither put each other in a great light, so I go down I won't be alone!
Calm Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I would suggest, if one took a natural point of view, that AIDS didn't damage society any more than any other fatal disease, such as cancer. Have you looked at what has and is happening in Africa due to AIDS?
Calm Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I think the Stake President probably reacted to when this Call fellow took his daughters to Bingo, hopefully not thinking that associating with gay people will make one gay-but I understand its human to protect your kids even from the evils of bingo!Right, it had nothing to do with the Cyber Sluts that were appearing at the bingo event, just the bingo.
Duncan Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Right, it had nothing to do with the Cyber Sluts that were appearing at the bingo event, just the bingo.We probably see worse at the movies!...coming from the States...
why me Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Why am I active? Lots of reasons, I don't see our Church and members and the gay community having a great relationship and neither put each other in a great light, so I go down I won't be alone!I think that it is great that you are active. I know of a gay catholic man who attends Mass regularly and receives the communion and he does live with someone, I believe. Religion and the gay community can have a rocky relationship. But if one can see a middle ground, that is wonderful.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Has this article been discussed? If true, it appears that a celibate but gay LDS Church employee was denied a temple recommend because of his association with gay friends.http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-13533-man-fired-from-lds-church-for-refusing-to-give-up-gay-friends.htmlDo we have both sides of this story?
semlogo Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 How about "will" destroy society? Would a society survive with just homosexuals?Would society survive with just poets? Or just accountants? Or just doctors?Actually, given the ease of artificial insemination, society would survive just fine with just gay people. But that's never going to happen.
bookofmormontruth Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Would society survive with just poets? Or just accountants? Or just doctors?Actually, given the ease of artificial insemination, society would survive just fine with just gay people. But that's never going to happen.Yes they definitely would survive, if they were men and women. Professions have nothing to do with it or we wouldn't be here as a species today.Hate to break the news, but movies like "Junior" are just movies for you need an actual uterus for the baby to grow. Males don't have uteruses and also can't produce eggs and chicken eggs don't count, sorry. Looks like God's eternal plan works after-all. Imagine that!
semlogo Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Yes they definitely would survive, if they were men and women. Professions have nothing to do with it or we wouldn't be here as a species today.Hate to break the news, but movies like "Junior" are just movies for you need an actual uterus for the baby to grow. Males don't have uteruses and also can't produce eggs and chicken eggs don't count, sorry. Looks like God's eternal plan works after-all. Imagine that!I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are gay men and gay women too. Not only that, but the gay women have uteri - and they work!And society wouldn't survive if everyone had the same specialization.
Jeff K. Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Yes they definitely would survive, if they were men and women. Professions have nothing to do with it or we wouldn't be here as a species today.Hate to break the news, but movies like "Junior" are just movies for you need an actual uterus for the baby to grow. Males don't have uteruses and also can't produce eggs and chicken eggs don't count, sorry. Looks like God's eternal plan works after-all. Imagine that!The post should be sub titled "Rhetoric meet Reality"
bookofmormontruth Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are gay men and gay women too. Not only that, but the gay women have uteri - and they work!And society wouldn't survive if everyone had the same specialization.Ah I see, so now it is men and women in the picture - not just artificial insemination that you posted earlier. I suppose they could survive with the technology, but what happens without the technology? Like you said earlier "not going to happen".Again, movies or "how to survive" tv shows don't prove a thing. When did our ancestors need specializations to survive? Hunters and gatherers did just fine without reading poetry and crunching numbers.Bottom line: homosexuality is not part of God's plan. Unless of course you reject the prophets and scriptures in this regard.
Jeff K. Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Has anyone EVER heard of a species in which the opposite sexes do not attract and yet the species still thrives?
bookofmormontruth Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Has anyone EVER heard of a species in which the opposite sexes do not attract and yet the species still thrives?Nope! Unless you are intellectually dishonest.
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Has anyone EVER heard of a species in which the opposite sexes do not attract and yet the species still thrives? I know of plenty of species where only a sub-set of individual organisms within any given group are required to reproduce for the species to effectively survive.There is simply no 'rule' in nature that says all - or even most - individual organisms of a species must reproduce for a species to be 'successful'.Homosexuality is present in all kinds of mammal and bird species (which suggests to me some kind of association with higher brain functions) - species which have survived perfectly well for millions upon millions of years.
semlogo Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Ah I see, so now it is men and women in the picture - not just artificial insemination that you posted earlier. I suppose they could survive with the technology, but what happens without the technology? Like you said earlier "not going to happen".Again, movies or "how to survive" tv shows don't prove a thing. When did our ancestors need specializations to survive? Hunters and gatherers did just fine without reading poetry and crunching numbers.Bottom line: homosexuality is not part of God's plan. Unless of course you reject the prophets and scriptures in this regard.Actually, our ancestors did very poorly, and barely managed to survive, and died out in large numbers when food sources dried up or when there was a drought or very cold winter. Specialization is one of the keys to the success of modern humanity.Homosexuality is obviously a part of God's plan, as it is common to almost every intelligent species. You can disagree about the morality of it, but God obviously is the author of homosexuality, if you accept that He is the author of life.
Jeff K. Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I know of plenty of species where only a sub-set of individual organisms within any given group are required to reproduce for the species to effectively survive.There is simply no 'rule' in nature that says all - or even most - individual organisms of a species must reproduce for a species to be 'successful'.Homosexuality is present in all kinds of mammal and bird species (which suggests to me some kind of association with higher brain functions) - species which have survived perfectly well for millions upon millions of years.You haven't answered the question. Is there a species that continued to exist where the opposite sexes are not attracted to each other. What you cite are exceptions within species and subgroups (your term). There is a simple rule... if you are not attracted (ie have no desire to reproduce with the opposite sex, you do not).
Calm Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Nope! Unless you are intellectually dishonest.This is not necessary.
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 What you cite are exceptions within species and subgroups (your term).Well, I didn't call them 'exceptions'.But - to use your term - these 'exceptions' probably have solid evolutionary utility. (They certainly do in such examples as bee and ant hives, where almost all individual organisms in any given colony don't reproduce...)For example, the evidence shows that the more boys a mother has, the chances that the next boy born to that mother will end up with homosexual tendencies increase.This points towards homosexuality being a mechanism that controls population growth.Under-population is not the only danger facing a species. Over-population is also a danger - and all species have some method of controlling it.Is there a species that continued to exist where the opposite sexes are not attracted to each other.You mean where a species consists of two sexes and suddenly every single member of that species - within a single generation - became completely uninterested in sex, or 'turned gay', or something of this kind...?Errr - no. Such a species wouldn't survive. Obviously.What's the point in asking the question...?
semlogo Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 You haven't answered the question. Is there a species that continued to exist where the opposite sexes are not attracted to each other. What you cite are exceptions within species and subgroups (your term). There is a simple rule... if you are not attracted (ie have no desire to reproduce with the opposite sex, you do not).Apparently you've never heard of asexual reproduction. Not that this has anything to do with homosexuality, as all intelligent animals have some homosexual members of the group.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.