Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[krose]

According to Merriam Webster, any sexual contact (such as oral or rectal intercourse (or also manual stimulation with foreign objects)) that does not involve a penis entering a vagina is also sexual intercourse.

I presented the definition for you and the link to see it yourself, are you sure that you read it, seemed very clear and straight forward to me?

I will accept the tertiary dictionary definition as consistent with your claims if you will verify for me that you consider couples who engage in the practice that the church calls "petting" to have committed "fornication" (also, what BYU students call "Levi loving").

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't mind LDS Guy 1986. See kolipoki09's quotations for an understanding of LDS Guy's grasp of science.

Oh snap. Pooned.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I will accept the tertiary dictionary definition as consistent with your claims if you will verify for me that you consider couples who engage in the practice that the church calls "petting" to have committed "fornication" (also, what BYU students call "Levi loving").

I reject that petting is fornication. Just so you know.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I will accept the tertiary dictionary definition as consistent with your claims if you will verify for me that you consider couples who engage in the practice that the church calls "petting" to have committed "fornication" (also, what BYU students call "Levi loving").

If it brings sexual gratification it is fornication, I believe that the official definition explains this very clearly.

To further clarify I present the following:

in

[LDS Guy 1986]

I reject that petting is fornication. Just so you know.

This is fine, but I think the Church disagrees though according to the evidence I have presented so far.

[semlogo]

Well like I said before (helps to read everything semilogo) if it is a supporting study then you must not present it as a new study like you did, give us his references to the previous studies.

I never said it was new, or "a study" as in a single study. I can only conclude that, in addition to not reading or listening to anything in my links, you didn't really read what I've posted either.

This is your presentation of his work, you need to provide the proper references, not expect people to do your work for you.

The references are in the FIRST POST! But you REFUSE to read or listen! Ugh.

Until you bother to get up to speed on this issue and actually find out what the professor said, and furthermore carefully read what I've said, I feel no need to respond to you further. I'm not going to discuss a topic with you about which you clearly prefer to remain uninformed. This is what the professor was talking about - "aggressive ignorance." You don't know, and you don't WANT to know, but you've got an opinion about it anyway. Incredible.

[BCSpace]

The Church does not recognize more than two genders; so there is no wiggle room here. On top of that, the scriptures allow the Church to easily continue with it's current doctrine even if an inborn cause for homosexuality were ever found (Ether 12:27).

Not yet, but there is room to recognize these genders, based on the evidence. Statements so far have been based on limited knowledge, and correct as far as they apply to the first two genders.

Again, I'm talking about wiggle room for change, not about what is currently taught.

As am I. There is no wiggle room now, there will be no wiggle room in the future. Ether 12:27 takes care of that.

[semlogo]

Semlogo:

I still consider you a friend, if that is OK with you.

I think the premise of the article is false. First there is no such thing as man v women brains apart from the sex we are genetically. Every cell in our bodies with DNA in it, including our brains, shouts who we are sexually. We'll not discuss hermaphrodites as this condition is usually not associated with homosexuality.

Again I think the good professor is conflating correlation with causation.

However. In the gospel we are free to choose our actions. Re the man who was born blind was not a sinner, neither were his parents.

I consider you a friend too, but there are clear differences between male and female brains, and the fact is that gay male brains are a lot like straight female brains, and so forth for lesbian brains and straight male brains.

Please describe to me what you mean when you say that he is conflating correlation with causation. Thanks!

[semlogo]

I apologize for any frustration I may be part of but, the frustration is only caused by your failure to civilly examine the critic of the article you presented. I will not learn any more about the article by listening to a pod cast, the article is sufficient source of information to base my critique on.

It's clear that you didn't read it either. You still think he's releasing a study or making a hypothesis.

[semlogo]

Further reading - this is in the first link, but I'm posting it explicitly:

http://www.ldsresources.info/professionals/bradshaw.shtml

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

[semlogo]

CFR repeated for semlogo's sake:

CFR

(Where do people come up with stuff like this?!!!!)

The references are in the OP. Thanks!

Also:

http://www.ldsresources.info/professionals/bradshaw.shtml

[krose]

I reject that petting is fornication. Just so you know.

Same here (no matter the gender of the person who does it). I also don't believe it's the LDS Church's official stance.

But Guy86 believes it is, and he is at least being internally consistent in defining all contact with anyone's genitals as fornication, so I'm leaving it alone now.

I apologize to semlogo for my part in the sidetrack.

-------------

On subject, I agree that there is a bit of wiggle room, and I think they will eventually change and be more accepting, but not for a long time.

I never thought I would hear some church leaders seem to accept that being gay is anything more than a personal choice, so it's definitely possible.

[bookofmormontruth]

There wasn't a better word than "wiggle"? It reminds me of a little puppy wiggling/forcing in between his siblings to get to the food.

Sorry, the so called "gay agenda" might force its way through the courts, but it won't force its way into the Lord's Church.

[semlogo]

As am I. There is no wiggle room now, there will be no wiggle room in the future. Ether 12:27 takes care of that.

I disagree. Clearly our old binary understanding of gender was wrong. Theology should be re-evaluated accordingly, especially since there is no revelation condemning monogamous gay relationships.

[semlogo]

There wasn't a better word than "wiggle"? It reminds me of a little puppy wiggling/forcing in between his siblings to get to the food.

Sorry, the so called "gay agenda" might force its way through the courts, but it won't force its way into the Lord's Church.

People once felt the same about civil rights, feminism, and polygamy. Just last weekend in conference we had a general authority telling people to not judge women who choose to work outside the home - a major change. The church has slowly embraced feminism over the years, and quickly embraced civil rights for blacks in 1978. There is ample precedence.

[thesometimesaint]

Semlogo:

As with my example of carrots and car accidents. Minor differences in brain size, and specialization of lobes in the male may have a correlation to homosexuality, but that hardly establishes causation. Further even if given that it does have that causation, the human animal is not totally dependent on biology for chosen actions.

Ps. We all have an inborn instinct to eat. But that biology doesn't dictate that I eat a dozen hamburgers at one sitting.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Same here (no matter the gender of the person who does it). I also don't believe it's the LDS Church's official stance.

But Guy86 believes it is, and he is at least being internally consistent in defining all contact with anyone's genitals as fornication, so I'm leaving it alone now.

I apologize to semlogo for my part in the sidetrack.

Any contact purely for sexual gratification, if someone or there physician makes contact with the genitals for legitimate medical reasons it is not fornication regardless if arousal happens.

I cannot say if this is the exact definition the Church uses but it is a violation of the Law of Chasity and one can be subject to disfellowshipped or excommunication if they are having any contact for sexual gratification regardless of if it is with self or another person. If one is caught in such acts and will repent and forsake such behavior they can he disciplined by the Church especially if they have they have temple ordinances. As with everything in the Church the more covenants you have made with the lord the more severe the discipline should you break those covenants.

Added by Edit:

The Church defines Chasity as abstaining from any sexual relations before marriage and only having sexual relations with our spouse when we are married.

http://lds.org/study/topics/chastity?lang=eng&query=chastity

[semlogo]

Semlogo:

As with my example of carrots and car accidents. Minor differences in brain size, and specialization of lobes in the male may have a correlation to homosexuality, but that hardly establishes causation. Further even if given that it does have that causation, the human animal is not totally dependent on biology for chosen actions.

Ps. We all have an inborn instinct to eat. But that biology doesn't dictate that I eat a dozen hamburgers at one sitting.

So it's your contention that a single difference is supposed to be the "cause"? I don't think that's been claimed. The thing is that gay men are physically feminized in many ways, from brain structure to finger size to even the function of how the ears operate. None of those things are necessarily the cause, they just show that there is a definite biological basis for homosexuality. Gay men are biologically feminized in many parts of the body, including brain, and the opposite for lesbians.

That's why I say that they are a third/fourth gender. They're not like males, and not like females. They're they're own thing. That's my contention, by the way, not the professor's.

The root cause is partially genetic, and partially due to what happens in the womb - and wombs seem to actually be programmed to produce gay children under certain circumstances. It's probably an evolved trait.

And if God is the author of evolution, it doesn't take much to put two and two together.

[LDS Guy 1986]

People once felt the same about civil rights, feminism, and polygamy. Just last weekend in conference we had a general authority telling people to not judge women who choose to work outside the home - a major change.

Yes if this was 1981 and not 2011, the Church has supported women working outside the home for decades. There focus is to have at least one parent at home regardless of gender, and even then if a family decides to have two working parents the Church will not condemn nor punish the members.

It seems like you need to go back and learn the massive amount of Church history you missed with all those studies you been following.

[semlogo]

Yes if this was 1981 and not 2011, the Church has supported women working outside the home for decades. There focus is to have at least one parent at home regardless of gender, and even then if a family decides to have two working parents the Church will not condemn nor punish the members.

It seems like you need to go back and learn the massive amount of Church history you missed with all those studies you been following.

You deliberately took out part of my statement where I said the acceptance of feminism has been gradual. Why is that?

"People once felt the same about civil rights, feminism, and polygamy. Just last weekend in conference we had a general authority telling people to not judge women who choose to work outside the home - a major change. The church has slowly embraced feminism over the years, and quickly embraced civil rights for blacks in 1978. There is ample precedence. "

In any case, this really is my last response to you until you've gotten up to speed on this issue. Read the articles, listen to the podcast. Writing a book review based on the summary on the back cover might work in grade school, but it doesn't fly with me.

[LDS Guy 1986]

You deliberately took out part of my statement where I said the acceptance of feminism has been gradual. Why is that?

"People once felt the same about civil rights, feminism, and polygamy. Just last weekend in conference we had a general authority telling people to not judge women who choose to work outside the home - a major change. The church has slowly embraced feminism over the years, and quickly embraced civil rights for blacks in 1978. There is ample precedence. "

In any case, this really is my last response to you until you've gotten up to speed on this issue. Read the articles, listen to the podcast. Writing a book review based on the summary on the back cover might work in grade school, but it doesn't fly with me.

You stated that this conference was a "MAJOR CHANGE" (direct quote from you) because it said a woman can work outside the home, from the past, which is only true if we turn back the clock to 1981. The Church has not had such views about women working outside the home in several decades so I fail to see how them reiterating a policy they have held for decades is a "MAJOR CHANGE".

It seems that your problem is you rather comment on things I was not talking about instead of admit you made a incorrect and silly statement, maybe if you read what I am quoting this will help alleviate you constantly missing the point I am making.

I understand this change took place slowly, but this change took place decades ago and the Church has had such polices for several decades, so you are wrong about you "MAJOR CHANGE" in the Church from the recent GC last weekend.

[LDS Guy 1986]

In any case, this really is my last response to you until you've gotten up to speed on this issue. Read the articles, listen to the podcast. Writing a book review based on the summary on the back cover might work in grade school, but it doesn't fly with me.

Well let's be thankful that science, the Church, nor this forum operate how you demand it too, I have followed all the rules and if you don't like that well there is nothing I can do. Your podcast would not of given me any more information to help me understand than the articles I read earlier, the only difference between the article and the podcast is the amount of details about the biology behind it, which is probably more advanced than what I can recall from high school bio anyway so it would only confuse me. Of course if you took a deep breath you would already know I read the articles and based by remarks on the articles.

I accept the science presented in the article as ethical and practical, I reject your flawed conclusions from the science presented, a point you continually seem to not understand.

[LDS Guy 1986]

and wombs seem to actually be programmed to produce gay children under certain circumstances. It's probably an evolved trait.

Nothing makes anyone have sex with anyone, no gene, no womb, no anything will force you to have sex with anyone else ever.

The researcher never makes this claim at all, nor does anyone so seeing that only fornication is a sin not attraction you point is completely wrong.

If a child is attracted to the same sex because of genetics that doesn't mean that they are forced to have sex with a man an commit a sin.

They choose to give into there desires and sin, there nothing that makes ANYONE commit a sin, EVER.

[krose]

I never stated that I have the best grammar. If I did my college writing professor would probably hunt me down and scourge me to death. She always said that I had a brilliant mind and excellent ability to present an compelling argument but my grammar was the most atrocious thing she had ever seen.

She is a very kind teacher, much more than I would ever be with any student of mine (unless there is a learning disability, of course).

My own expectation is that any high-school graduate who voluntarily chooses to communicate through writing (as on message boards) ought to show an ability to communicate at a reasonable level. It really isn't that hard, especially with the technology tools we have now. Many of us who do not have your "brilliant mind" manage to pull it off every day. So I don't think the expectation is unreasonable at all.

[LDS Guy 1986]

She is a very kind teacher, much more than I would ever be with any student of mine (unless there is a learning disability, of course).

Maybe this is why she is a tenured professor that teaches writing courses and you possible are not?

As she explained a college writing course is not a high school course, it is less about proper use of grammar and more about presentation of creative ideas that can be discussed.

In the real world you have an editor to deal with punctuation and grammar, and it is more important that you learn how to present a discussion piece that to learn high school grammar.

My own expectation is that any high-school graduate who voluntarily chooses to communicate through writing (as on message boards) ought to show an ability to communicate at a reasonable level. It really isn't that hard, especially with the technology tools we have now. Many of us who do not have your "brilliant mind" manage to pull it off every day. So I don't the expectation is unreasonable at all.

Well when the forum adopts your position I will gladly take grammar lessons, but you see in the real world the forum are not high school grammar nazis, even if some of the membership is.

This is why we discuss, if my grammar confuses you ask for clarification, I wish that I could comprehending the finer technicalities of grammar but each of us has or weak points in our formal education.

So I welcome you to petition the moderators to introduce such rules to the forum, until then I don't care about your griping about grammar. Especially when it is such an obvious deflation and derailment of the thread to avoid facing holes in your argument.