The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[The Nehor]

Not sure how you can say it's not your concern, while opposing it. Why would you oppose something that is not your concern?

Good question. Instead of saying not my concern it probably would have been better to say I am not directly influenced or affected by it. The same could be said of all kinds of laws, many of which I have strong views on.

[california boy]

May I offer another:

c) It is forbidden by God.

I am not personally revolted by the idea (though I also have no interest) nor do I believe God hates it more then he does any other violation of his commandments.

If the prophet were to change the position of the Church then there would obviously need to be some doctrinal clarifications. Can it be an eternal sealing (I would doubt it)? Could it just be that those who deal with same-sex attraction will be allowed to marry for time only? Maybe.

I'm not saying any of these things are probable. I doubt they'll happen. I won't leave the Church if they do. I haven't sought a spiritual witness regarding homosexual behavior and don't plan to as it is really not my concern.

I should add that even if things are changed there won't be any retroactive adjustments making it less of a sin now. I feel nothing but sympathy for those who will never find romantic love in this life but those dealing with homosexuality in the LDS faith are not the only ones dealing with that burden. I would suggest that heterosexuals imagine what it would be like if things were reversed and our relationships were forbidden but we were still stuck with the desire for it. Imagine the pain, the longing, the questioning. Can't you feel any sympathy for that?

We're having our say in the political and social battlefield over this and will continue to do so. If they are our enemies our standing orders are clear: pray for them.

I would think forbidden by God would fall under reason B)

Really, the only honest reasons I've heard people express as to why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed are:

a) They personally are revolted by the idea (the same many homosexuals are revolted by the idea of heterosex)

b) They believe God hates it with a burning passion.

But if you want to word that differently, I have no problem with that. I still go back to looking for an answer to my question which you didn't answer:

Do you think that your campaign of justifying the marginalization of homosexuality will some how wipe it off the face of the earth? Or even make any significant difference on preventing homosexuality? Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of humans. It has always existed. It will continue to exist. It will continue to exist just as adultery, fortification and other "God condemned sins." You live your lives with all of these sins around you. WHY do you feel the need to somehow try and control homosexuality? Can anyone specifically tell me how homosexuality has effected their lives personally in any different way than any other sin that exists in the world?

Do you think this fixation on not allowing gays to marry will somehow make them form more stable relationships? Or do you think it will help them form relationships with the opposite sex? Seriously, what do you expect stopping gays to marry will accomplish? And if you think it will accomplish something, will you be putting this same effort in eradicating other sins? Are you hoping that there will be laws making homosexuality a crime?

Mostly I want to know what the heck you are trying to accomplish by putting so much effort into marginalization homosexuality. Specific goals would be appreciated rather than continued rants and questionable rationalizations. .

[Storm Rider]

I would think forbidden by God would fall under reason B)

But if you want to word that differently, I have no problem with that. I still go back to looking for an answer to my question which you didn't answer:

You think forbidden by God is the equivalent of "God hates it with a burning passion". I guess the first thing is do you think there is a need to exaggerate the context out of proportion? Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is, "Dang, a bit of a drama queen aren't we!", but then that would be too cheeky. To exaggerate is to distort and I still see no need to do so; why do you?

[Zakuska]

And now for a commercial break:

Video: Reporter flirts with Westboro Church man.

The language in the link was a little too R rated for this site. -Ares

EDIT: Sorry.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

I find it incredible that no one can explain why they are fighting this "noble" cause. Here is the post again if you would like to honestly answer what I ask.

Really, the only honest reasons I've heard people express as to why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed are:

a) They personally are revolted by the idea (the same many homosexuals are revolted by the idea of heterosex)

b) They believe God hates it with a burning passion.

c) They believe in evolution and are opposed to devolution.

d) They believe that the costs of homosexuality to society on several levels far outweigh the benefits.

e) They have a profound respect for, and wish to promote and preserve the traditional family structure.

f) They are concerned for the physical and spiritual health of homosexuals and society as a whole.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

You think forbidden by God is the equivalent of "God hates it with a burning passion". I guess the first thing is do you think there is a need to exaggerate the context out of proportion? Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is, "Dang, a bit of a drama queen aren't we!", but then that would be too cheeky. To exaggerate is to distort and I still see no need to do so; why do you?

Exaggeration? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Usually, I would say God abhors sodomy. But lets go to the book to see if hates with a burning passion is an overt exaggeration, deserving of your criticism.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

[seriously honestly]

And now for a commercial break:

Video: Reporter flirts with Westboro Church man.

The language in the link was a little too R rated for this site. -Ares

Starting at 2:15, I couldn't help but laugh Especially when they started to panic.

On a serious note, I hope no one actually believes they are a church. I soooooo strongly believe they have missed gospel message, and they do not represent Christianity. *sigh* I do not beleive God is not with those people....

[Storm Rider]

Exaggeration? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Usually, I would say God abhors sodomy. But lets go to the book to see if hates with a burning passion is an overt exaggeration, deserving of your criticism.

I think we are going off-topic, but I will play for a bit. The term abomination is used many, many times in scripture. It does not equate to a "buring passion". For example, let's take Proverbs 29:27

27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked. In this context, as in most, an abomination is an affront to God, an affront to righteousness. I dislike making any about drama; take it by the horns, don't pull the punch, but there is no need to do a swan dive into silliness.

[Jaybear]

I think we are going off-topic, but I will play for a bit. The term abomination is used many, many times in scripture. It does not equate to a "buring passion". For example, let's take Proverbs 29:27

27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked. In this context, as in most, an abomination is an affront to God, an affront to righteousness. I dislike making any about drama; take it by the horns, don't pull the punch, but there is no need to do a swan dive into silliness.

In this case, its such an affront to God that .... "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

That sounds rather passionate to me. Abomination, death, blood.

[KevinG]

People were put to death for a lot of things in the Old Testament. I'd hate to model our justice system or Church policy on Leviticus today. I'd also wager most Mormons, while passionate about traditional marriage, would not advocate ending the life of a homosexual.

God hates those things which separate us from Him. We are after all his beloved children. Weakness of the flesh of any kind is an abomination in that regard. No sin is looked upon with any allowance and God is no respecter of persons.

Perhaps we all have the desire to have God accept or turn a blind eye to our greatest weaknesses. But in His wisdom he guides us to do those things which will bring us eternal joy - sometimes even at the cost of mortal happiness.

[Jaybear]

c) They believe in evolution and are opposed to devolution.

d) They believe that the costs of homosexuality to society on several levels far outweigh the benefits.

e) They have a profound respect for, and wish to promote and preserve the traditional family structure.

f) They are concerned for the physical and spiritual health of homosexuals and society as a whole.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Evolution/deevolution? Rhetoric. Gays don't procreate.

Social costs? What costs? Gay marriage is good for the economy. At the prop 8 trial, your expert said it was good for children raised by gay couples. Can you be more specific, please. What evidence do you have of these vague societal costs that the prop 8 trial lawyers didn't know about?

Preserve traditional family structure. Pretext and circular rhetoric. Allowing gays to marry doesn't lead to fewer or shorter hetero marriages. Denying gays right to marry, won't send them to hetero relationships. Gay marriage is an "attack on traditional" marriage only because those opposed to gay marriage perceive it to be a such. I see it as a reaffirmation of the value and importance of marriage.

Concerned for physical health of gays. Pure unadulterated B.S. Marriage is good for people. Marriage promotes monogamy. Married people live longer.

Concern for spiritual health. Ding ding ding. See B. Spiritual health in jeopardy because God abhors sodomy.

You are not making a compelling case here Wade. You just regurgitating talking points that were exposed at the prop 8 trial as lacking substance.

[california boy]

c) They believe in evolution and are opposed to devolution.

d) They believe that the costs of homosexuality to society on several levels far outweigh the benefits.

e) They have a profound respect for, and wish to promote and preserve the traditional family structure.

f) They are concerned for the physical and spiritual health of homosexuals and society as a whole.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am confused as well. Do you think stopping gays from marriage accomplishes any of your stated goals? Can you explain how forcing them to stay unmarried will better accomplish your goals? I need a little explaining here.

[seriously honestly]

I am confused as well. Do you think stopping gays from marriage accomplishes any of your stated goals? Can you explain how forcing them to stay unmarried will better accomplish your goals? I need a little explaining here.

I believe it's a matter of keeping marriage the way God intended it to be: one man, and one women.

[wenglund]

I am confused as well. Do you think stopping gays from marriage accomplishes any of your stated goals?

Yes, among other things. Obviously.

Can you explain how forcing them to stay unmarried will better accomplish your goals? I need a little explaining here.

I have explained it in-depth and on numerous occasions to you and others on previous incarnations of this board, and I am not interested in reproducing my efforts here. Feel free to peruse old threads, particular those started by me--since they were designed in particular to explicate the things I listed above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Evolution/deevolution? Rhetoric. Gays don't procreate.

Social costs? What costs? Gay marriage is good for the economy. At the prop 8 trial, your expert said it was good for children raised by gay couples. Can you be more specific, please. What evidence do you have of these vague societal costs that the prop 8 trial lawyers didn't know about?

Preserve traditional family structure. Pretext and circular rhetoric. Allowing gays to marry doesn't lead to fewer or shorter hetero marriages. Denying gays right to marry, won't send them to hetero relationships. Gay marriage is an "attack on traditional" marriage only because those opposed to gay marriage perceive it to be a such. I see it as a reaffirmation of the value and importance of marriage.

Concerned for physical health of gays. Pure unadulterated B.S. Marriage is good for people. Marriage promotes monogamy. Married people live longer.

Concern for spiritual health. Ding ding ding. See B. Spiritual health in jeopardy because God abhors sodomy.

You are not making a compelling case here Wade. You just regurgitating talking points that were exposed at the prop 8 trial as lacking substance.

I understand your confusion. You mistakenly assumed that my brief answers to a simple question was an attempt by me to make a case. it wasn't. I was only pointing out some of the basic motives for why some of us have taken up the cause. My case was made in numerous threads on previous incarnations of this board. Feel free to peruse them with your buddy Californiaboy--not that I expect that the two of you will agree with me. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 27, 2011 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

I understand your confusion. You mistakenly assumed that my brief answers to a simple question was an attempt by me to make a case. it wasn't. I was only pointing out some of the basic motives for why some of us have taken up the cause. My case was made in numerous threads on previous incarnations of this board. Feel free to peruse them with your buddy Californiaboy--not that I expect that the two of you will agree with me. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not the least bit confused. I pointed out how easily discredited your list was, just to show that the "motives" that purportedly drives you were purely pretextual.

The fact is you believe God abhors sodomy, and your Church, of which you are true believer vocally opposes gay marriage. Do you really expect anyone to believe that this is not enough of a reason for you to oppose gay marriage.

[Cobalt-70]

No, but in any case the description wouldn't fit and isn't a compulsion. A person is left handed because of which side of the brain is stronger. Even if you say that a person's sexual orientation is purely biological, which it isn't in many cases and which is still up for debate in others, it is still a matter of one's attraction and not one's ability to act as many who are gay don't necessarily act on that. SSA is merely saying that is how they are oriented not how they must act.

If you already admit that "SSA" is an "orientation," then why don't you just say "gay" and "lesbian"? The purpose of using a pseudoclinical term like "SSA" is so that you don't have to admit that homosexuality exists. The term makes it easier to pretend that a gay person is just a straight person suffering from some curable disease.

Left-handedness is the best analogy there is with homosexuality. We don't understand the mechanism by which either of them develops. We know that left-handedness is real. Left-handed people are not just right-handed people with a moral failing, or with an abused childhood. We know that both are associated with differences in brain anatomy. We also know that left-handed people can be forced to use their right hand as skillfully as their left hand, if not more, but that does not change the left-handed nature of their brains, and does not eliminate their left-handedness. A left-handed person can abstain from using his left hand, but that does not make him right-handed. Also, right-handed people can use their left hand, but left-handed people cannot "convert" a right-handed person to lefthandedism.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[seriously honestly]

If you already admit that "SSA" is an "orientation," then why don't you just say "gay" and "lesbian"? The purpose of using a pseudoclinical term like "SSA" is so that you don't have to admit that homosexuality exists. The term makes it easier to pretend that a gay person is just a straight person suffering from some curable disease.

Could you expound on that? I get how you arrived at that conclusion. It seems like "SSA" is just the politically correct term for gay or lesbian. I don't see it as being a term used to pretend that homosexuallity doesn't exist.

[Cobalt-70]

But I personally have no problem with calling someone gay if that is the term they prefer. I use that word too. It’s easier to say and also the most recognized. I recognize it as an orientation and an identity. The problem that I have is that it tends to overshadow everything else about the person.

Most gay and lesbian people I know would not want people to think of their homosexuality as their sole defining factor. If someone's status as a gay or lesbian person "seems to overshadow everything else about a person," that is not their fault. That's the fault of people who can't get over the fact that they are gay, and can't move past that to see the person for who they are. No straight person I know wants to be known primarily for their straightness, and the same is true for gay people.

The media doesn't really help in that regard. TV shows will typically have the "gay cast member" who is little more than a stereotype. These stereotypes do not represent real people. Most real gay and lesbian people I know--even if they are effeminate men or butch women--want to be known for characteristics other than their sexual orientation.

[wenglund]

I am not the least bit confused. I pointed out how easily discredited your list was, just to show that the "motives" that purportedly drives you were purely pretextual.

As I see it, there was no real discrediting, just you dogmatically sharing with me your biased opinion--for what little it is worth to me. Yawn.

The fact is you believe God abhors sodomy, and your Church, of which you are true believer vocally opposes gay marriage. Do you really expect anyone to believe that this is not enough of a reason for you to oppose gay marriage.

Now you have gone from dogmatically sharing your opinion of what I said to dogmatically putting words into my mouth, and conflating it with fact.

There is little point in trying to engage a dogmatist, but even less when the dogmatist is intent on speaking for both sides. Feel free to carry on with your own imaginary conversation without me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 27, 2011 by wenglund

[california boy]

I believe it's a matter of keeping marriage the way God intended it to be: one man, and one women.

I am assuming by your answer that for you preventing gay marriage is strickly based on religious belief. I can certainly understand that point of view and are willing to leave it at that.

What I don't quite get is the need to try to smear gays by comparing them to pedophiles, painting them all out to be drug abusers and trying to devalue them and their families as much as possible. Blanket statements like gays bring a hight cost to society when dismissing all of the greatness in art, literature, science, government, armed services etc. gay people have contributed. They contribute just as much as straight people. The only difference is what they do in their own bedroom.

BTW, I am not accusing you of that, I just find this board to permeate with these kinds of messages whenever something gay is brought up. Why do some people have such a difficult time saying they are against gay marriage on religious beliefs instead of making so many bs reasons up.

[Deborah]

Most gay and lesbian people I know would not want people to think of their homosexuality as their sole defining factor.

Then why the heck call them gay or lesbian which to me define them by their homosexuality rather than a simple orientation that may or not be a significant part of their lives. If you say someone is gay you are immediately bringing forth a stereotypical image.

[wenglund]

I am assuming by your answer that for you preventing gay marriage is strickly based on religious belief. I can certainly understand that point of view and are willing to leave it at that.

What I don't quite get is the need to try to smear gays by comparing them to pedophiles, painting them all out to be drug abusers and trying to devalue them and their families as much as possible. Blanket statements like gays bring a hight cost to society when dismissing all of the greatness in art, literature, science, government, armed services etc. gay people have contributed. They contribute just as much as straight people. The only difference is what they do in their own bedroom.

BTW, I am not accusing you of that, I just find this board to permeate with these kinds of messages whenever something gay is brought up. Why do some people have such a difficult time saying they are against gay marriage on religious beliefs instead of making so many bs reasons up.

You evidently aren't correctly grasping the reason pedophilia is brought up in connection with homosexuality. It isn't an attempt to smear, but rather an attempt to convey principles in ways you may understand, which you might not otherwise grasp in relation to homosexuality.

This has been explained to you in the past, which makes me wonder if your persistent misunderstanding in really just a lame attempt to invoke sympathy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

The term makes it easier to pretend that a gay person is just a straight person suffering from some curable disease.

Honestly this sounds silly to me. That is like saying that calling someone diabetic is pretending she is just a nondiabetic person suffering from some curable disease. Of course if someone doesn't have diabetes they are not diabetic, but if they have diabetes they are....and since at this point it is not really all that curable (unless one already has transplants so one can get an islet transplant...they don't do those just on their own because the side effects of the immune suppressant drugs are worse than diabetes itself) saying "I am diabetic" is for life for the majority (and as a side note diabetes type 1 appears on average around the age of 12 while SSA is usually identified by the individual around the same age...or so said the last info I read about it).

The reason why I use SSA is to avoid confusion over talking about thoughts/inclination and external behaviour. As was obvious in the discussion involving Mitch Mayne where he describes himself as an "openly gay" individual there are those who assume that "gay" means "acting gay" as in sexual behaviour. Using SSA is a shorthand for "homosexual or lesbian inclinations"....three letters instead of 31 not including spacing. I like to use precise language, but I am also lazy and will take shortcuts if they are there. Come up with an equally short way of writing it that you don't find offensive and makes sense and will be understood by the majority of people involved and I will be happy to switch.

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[california boy]

Yes, among other things. Obviously.

I have explained it in-depth and on numerous occasions to you and others on previous incarnations of this board, and I am not interested in reproducing my efforts here. Feel free to peruse old threads, particular those started by me--since they were designed in particular to explicate the things I listed above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are correct in saying that we have heard often your views on why a gay person should not be allowed to marry the person he loves. And while I disagree with most of your conclusions, what I still don't have a clear answer to is how keeping gays unmarried stops or slows devolution, helps society, effects traditonal family values and helps their physical and spiritual health??

It seems like a simple question. Let me help. If we stop gays from marrying then___________________________ will happen as a result.