zelder Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Your argument appeared to be that if God didn't condone it, that was enough. That was the point of my response - God hasn't specifically condoned most things.My point was that God appears to have been very consistent on this issue for a very long time.
semlogo Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 My point was that God appears to have been very consistent on this issue for a very long time.God was equally consistent about shellfish. I hope that doesn't stop you from enjoying a nice lobster bisque.
zelder Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 God was equally consistent about shellfish. I hope that doesn't stop you from enjoying a nice lobster bisque.No, God told Peter that it was ok to eat lobster.
semlogo Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 That's a good question. I don't know. Maybe he didn't want to give ideas about sins that were not enough of a problem at the time. Maybe bringing it to attention would have created more of a problem was existing. edit: The word "homosexuality" didn't even exist in Joseph Smiths time.Homosexuality is hardly a new phenomenon. No one needed to tell me about girls for me to be attracted to them. In fact, we have every reason to believe that homosexuality has been around as long as the human race.The concept of homosexuality is completely absent from any scriptures brought forth by Joseph Smith.
semlogo Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 No, God told Peter that it was ok to eat lobster.Did God specifically tell Peter it was okay to touch his wife during her period? Or is that still forbidden?
zelder Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Homosexuality is hardly a new phenomenon. No one needed to tell me about girls for me to be attracted to them. In fact, we have every reason to believe that homosexuality has been around as long as the human race.The concept of homosexuality is completely absent from any scriptures brought forth by Joseph Smith.I agree. Therefore, it makes sense that it was mentioned in the bible, there must have been a problem with it during those times. I'm sure some homosexuality existed in Joseph Smiths time but not even enough for people to give it a proper name. It probably didn't even cross the mind of most people.
zelder Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Did God specifically tell Peter it was okay to touch his wife during her period? Or is that still forbidden?I don't know, I'm not worried about it. EDIT: I'll give you points for making me laugh though! that was very funny!
Mordecai Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Did God specifically tell Peter it was okay to touch his wife during her period? Or is that still forbidden?I wonder if it was like his other dream about the gentiles, in that his wife was represented by a hog, in his dream.
Otis Spurlock Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 FWIW, abuse, especially violent abuse, is higher in homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships.Statistics??
Otis Spurlock Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 so, based on the evidence, gay marriage, or rather equal civil marriage rights for everybody regardless of sexual preference, does not appear to have been a threat to traditional marriage in my country. It may be a threat to someone
Mordecai Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Gay people are allowed to marry--they're allowed to marry people of the opposite gender. My argument sounds more like, "Gay people are allowed to marry. Period." They are not prevented from "living together as husband and wife." Not being recognized in the way that you prefer does not represent a lack of freedom. It is simply a lack of agreement on how you ought to be perceived. I think you guys are trying to play the role of thought police. You can't stand that people might think that a gay union isn't the same as a real marriage.
zelder Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 My argument sounds more like, "Gay people are allowed to marry. Period." They are not prevented from "living together as husband and wife." Not being recognized in the way that you prefer does not represent a lack of freedom. It is simply a lack of agreement on how you ought to be perceived. I think you guys are trying to play the role of thought police. You can't stand that people might think that a gay union isn't the same as a real marriage.I think you are right. Recognition seems to be the primary issue here. Nothing prevents them from forming relationships with who ever they want.
TAO Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 There's no real scriptural basis to say that homosexuality is a sin, anymore than autism is a sin. How would you like to be labeled a sinner because of your autism?I can't be labeled a sinner because of my Autism. I can be labeled a sinner because of Autistic actions though.I will be honest, in times I have struggled with lust in life. Does it make me a sinner just to have tendencies towards that? No. Does it make me a sinner to act upon that with my thoughts? It definitely does. Actions are the things that count.But also... homosexuality is clearly labeled a sin in several chapters of the Bible... can't see why you think it isn't mentioned... .
TAO Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Here's the actual definition of homosexuality:"Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender."Coming from dictionary.com:sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.Bolding by me.The church doesn't have problem with tendency... It has a problem with dwelling on those thoughts, and with behavior.Homosexuality as is used in the Bible is synonymous with action, if you look at it, as well. Therefore, in my opinion, the homosexuality that is of concern is the action/thought dwelling type. Difficult to control, but important to overcome.
Otis Spurlock Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I think you are right. Recognition seems to be the primary issue here. Nothing prevents them from forming relationships with who ever they want.I think it goes much farther than just wanting recoginition. Several States have recently legalized not marriage for gays, but a
TAO Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The concept of homosexuality is completely absent from any scriptures brought forth by Joseph Smith.No, this is not correct... 2 Nephi 13:9 mentions it... as it quotes part of Isaiah.
Mordecai Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 ...While I applaud this step in the right direction, a new institution for gay couples is not the answer. It simply affirms their second-class status in American society...I'm sorry but I've seen this obviously false argument so many times, and it's so obviously spurious I have to laugh. A different name for different behavior designates that behavior as different, but not as inherently inferior. You're wrong on two levels, in that it's not about the people but the behavior and it's not an official declaration of the behavior's inferiority.In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the policy of
Otis Spurlock Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Like they couldn't help themselves from sitting at the backs of buses, and insisted that the gov't call the back, "the front." That is one of the uglier and more offensive false analogies known to mankind. African Americans had a REAL civil rights movement. This "gay marriage" movement is a sham.I doubt that the millions of gay men and women in America would agree that the "gay marriage" movement is a sham. The truth is that (as conservatives love to point out) marriage is society's most fundamental institution. To prohibit or bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation of liberty. Just remember, not too long ago it was illegal in most parts of America for blacks to marry whites. No one would now dare to claim that this was a trivial disenfranchisement or deprivation of rights for those people who could not marry someone they love because of their skin color. I suppose if you lived back in the 1950's you would have said the movement to overturn the Miscegenation Laws was also a "sham"?The truth is, whether you are for or against gay marriage, it will be legal in America in the next 5 to 10 years. Not much you can do to stop it.
Mordecai Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I doubt that the millions of gay men and women in America would agree that the "gay marriage" movement is a sham.People that are suffering from a delusion aren't aware that they are suffering from it.The truth is that (as conservatives love to point out) marriage is society's most fundamental institution. To prohibit or bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation of liberty.This is a strawman, part of the delusion I'm talking about. No one is banning people from having the relationships they want. They can "live together as husband and wife" all they want. How many times must I explain this? This is about gay people demanding a particular type of recognition, which is not a right, by any stretch of the imagination.Just remember, not too long ago it was illegal in most parts of America for blacks to marry whites.LOL... Again... LOL... No. Wrong. Incredibly false analogy.The truth is, whether you are for or against gay marriage, it will be legal in America in the next 5 to 10 years. Not much you can do to stop it.I'll see you at the polls. We'll fight like we did last time. The thing about truth is that it's more powerful than lies. I think people will begin to realize what the French have realized, when their courts ruled that a gay union is not a marriage, and the gov't shouldn't confuse society by pretending that it is.
Otis Spurlock Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 LOL... Again... LOL... No. Wrong. Incredibly false analogy.I'll see you at the polls. We'll fight like we did last time. The thing about truth is that it's more powerful than lies. I think people will begin to realize what the French have realized, when their courts ruled that a gay union is not a marriage, and the gov't shouldn't confuse society by pretending that it is.Wrong? Really? Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii never enacted Anit-miscegenation laws. Utah certainly had anti-miscegenation laws. Where did you get your information that I am wrong? Please share Second, I doubt you will see me at the polls on the "gay marriage" issue. I just don't care that much about it . I'm pretty apathetic to the whole issue, but I think we all need to show much more compassionate to our fellow man. Reading many of the comments makes me think the Savior would be sorely displeased at the actions of some of his children.Now, please excuse me while I go watch Glee with my family
TAO Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Reading many of the comments makes me think the Savior would be sorely displeased at the actions of some of his children.Yeah, I worry about this one too =/.
Mordecai Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Wrong? Really? Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii never enacted Anit-miscegenation laws. Utah certainly had anti-miscegenation laws. Where did you get your information that I am wrong? Please share Wrong, in that it is an incredibly false analogy. Still... LOL. So wrong. I think we all need to show much more compassionate to our fellow man...It's one thing to show compassion. It's another to have the gov't adopt an obviously false political dogma.
pcarthew Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 For almost 10 years now, everybody over the age of 18 can get married before the law in my country, regardless of sexual orientation. One in five homosexual couples have gotten married during that time, as compared to four in five heterosexual couples. The legal and financial implications of having children are the main reason for getting married in my country. That would explain why fewer homosexual couples get married, as they tend to have fewer children. In most other respects (e.g. divorce, when and where to get married, age at marriage, etc.), there are no statistically relevant differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples.For those who fear gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage, yes, the absolute number of marriages has gone down more than 16% between 2001 and 2011. However, marriage rates in my country have been going down since the 1950s and the rate of decline hasn
Ariarates Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 The position on Gay marriage of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ can be summarised as followsUnfortunately, God and Jesus aren't citizens so they have no say in the matter. We're discussing secular law here, and since most of us hold the separation of church and state dear, the proclamation has no place in this discussion.
semlogo Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 No, this is not correct... 2 Nephi 13:9 mentions it... as it quotes part of Isaiah.And what's the sin of Sodom? I'd argue that it was lack of charity.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.