Taylor Petrey'S Dialogue Article

[Senator]

The GAs aren't the only ones allowed to question the veracity of dogmas.

I question the truth of that statement in cultural practice.

[cinepro]

And if "horny" means what I think it means, how does it account for the fact that homosexual men are the most promiscuous people around anywhere?

Do homosexual men really desire sex more than heterosexual men?

Because, speaking as a heterosexual man, unless the homosexual day runs for 25 hours, I don't see how that would be possible.

Edited December 12, 2011 by cinepro

[Pahoran]

Gays contribute to society through their labor, if nothing else. The idea that they are "parasites" just because society could survive without them is ridiculous and offensive. Society could survive without Mormons, too. More to the point, society could survive without people who are infertile or disinclined to have children. Are all those people "parasites" just because they don't pass on their genes like good little heterosexual drones?

I'm not the one who called them "parasites." Indeed, it is not obvious to me that "a parasitic culture," which was mfbukowski's construct, is semantically equivalent to "a culture of parasites." But I'll let him speak for himself on that issue.

But apart from that, your contempt for "good little heterosexual drones" is beginning to sound a lot like the contempt for "breeders" demonstrated by gaygitators elsewhere. Would you like to come out (so to speak) and tell us where you really stand on these matters?

Regards,

Pahoran

[David T]

Only if the wellbeing of those children is considered to be less important than helping "gays" feel good about themselves.

Tell that to this kid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VnEexIhBTU

[David T]

By the way, check out the latest newsroom statement on Divine Revelation in Modern Times - I think it's appropriate, and reinforces what I've already said.

"Most often, revelation unfolds as an ongoing, prayerful dialogue with God: A problem arises, its dimensions are studied out, a question is asked, and with sufficient faith, God leads us to answers, either partial or full. Though ultimately a spiritual experience, revelation also requires careful thought. God does not simply hand down information. He expects us to figure things out through prayerful searching and sound thinking."

Edited December 12, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Calm]

Certainly when one compares the self-described characteristics and interests of homosexual males to those of heterosexual males, one is struck by the relative harmlessness of the gay group:.

Harmlessness as self perceived, yes.

The studies that show greater domestic violence and drug use among homosexuals would seem to indicate self description is not necessarily accurate in this case.

A study identifying behaviours associated with each characteristic that goes on to measure actual behaviour would be better at determining the differences than one based on self description, though the latter may be useful in demonstrating what is valued on seen as a norm or an ideal.

Edited December 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

CS, I just noticed you did not give a reference for your graph and I wasinterested in the methodology used. Would you be kind enough to remedy the lack, thank you.

[Chris Smith]

But apart from that, your contempt for "good little heterosexual drones" is beginning to sound a lot like the contempt for "breeders" demonstrated by gaygitators elsewhere.

Actually, I was caricaturing your view that heterosexuals derive their social worth from their ability to breed.

Would you like to come out (so to speak) and tell us where you really stand on these matters?

If you're asking if I'm gay, the answer is no. Not that it's any of your business.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Pahoran]

I for one am glad that individuals - including Presidents of the Church - questioned, studied, and repeatedly petitioned the Lord for further knowledge as to if the policy of banning blacks from the priesthood was really necessary.

I don't think we would have had the 1978 revelation if thinking, pondering, working out the historical underpinnings, etc and bringing the Lord a conclusion hadn't been part of the equation. President Kimball studied (and directed others to study) the research that had been done on the subject in the past. It was part of what led to his conclusion that he brought to the Lord and had ratified.

Actually, as has been pointed out elsewhere, much to the high dudgeon of certain of the gaygitators, the Priesthood ban was constantly questioned throughout the Church's history, because it was always anomalous in the light of normative LDS doctrine. By contrast, a paradigm of heterosexual rectitude is entirely consistent and harmonious with said doctrine. Even Brigham Young, the alleged uber-racist, regarded the Priesthood ban as a temporary condition that would disappear at some time in the future, envisaging a post-eschatological world in which no racial distinctions would remain. But I don't know of any Latter-day Saint anywhere who imagines any sort of "GLBT heaven."

Let me be entirely clear on that last point: Mormons may have all kinds of views on many subjects; but all actual Latter-day Saints are those who believe and accept the revealed doctrines of the kingdom. All human beings are male or female, and gender is an essential part of our identity and eternal destiny.

Nobody is advocating Temple Sealers go rogue and begin sealing gay couples.

Not yet, they're not; they're taking it one step at a time.

I am old enough to remember the "abortion on demand" agitation some decades ago. That is now a lost fight, and hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year are paying the price. But just last week, I heard the latest movement on that front when a feminagitator insisted that the law should deny doctors any right to refuse to perform abortions, on any grounds -- especially religious ones -- if a woman demands one.

What is being presented is historical and pragmatic information that will be a resource for the GAs - especially the president of the Church - to ponder, think about, and bring to the Lord in prayer.

The GAs aren't the only ones allowed to question the veracity of dogmas. They just happen to be the ones authorized to officially overturn or adapt them in ecclesiastical practice.

Don't expect the Church to collapse on this point any time soon.

Or ever.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Actually, I was caricaturing your view that heterosexuals derive their social worth from their ability to breed.

I hold no such view, and I regret that I cannot see that you have any good faith basis to believe that I do hold one.

If you're asking if I'm gay, the answer is no. Not that it's any of your business.

If you say so.

Regards,

Pahoran

[David T]

Actually, as has been pointed out elsewhere, much to the high dudgeon of certain of the gaygitators, the Priesthood ban was constantly questioned throughout the Church's history, because it was always anomalous in the light of normative LDS doctrine. By contrast, a paradigm of heterosexual rectitude is entirely consistent and harmonious with said doctrine. Even Brigham Young, the alleged uber-racist, regarded the Priesthood ban as a temporary condition that would disappear at some time in the future, envisaging a post-eschatological world in which no racial distinctions would remain. But I don't know of any Latter-day Saint anywhere who imagines any sort of "GLBT heaven."

Let me be entirely clear on that last point: Mormons may have all kinds of views on many subjects; but all actual Latter-day Saints are those who believe and accept the revealed doctrines of the kingdom. All human beings are male or female, and gender is an essential part of our identity and eternal destiny.

Not yet, they're not; they're taking it one step at a time.

I am old enough to remember the "abortion on demand" agitation some decades ago. That is now a lost fight, and hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year are paying the price. But just last week, I heard the latest movement on that front when a feminagitator insisted that the law should deny doctors any right to refuse to perform abortions, on any grounds -- especially religious ones -- if a woman demands one.

Don't expect the Church to collapse on this point any time soon.

Or ever.

Regards,

Pahoran

Would you feel an obligation to leave the Church if, say, in a few years, President of the Church Dallin Oaks announced a revelation extending temple blessing to Homosexual Marriages?

[Chris Smith]

CS, I just noticed you did not give a reference for your graph and I wasinterested in the methodology used. Would you be kind enough to remedy the lack, thank you.

Yeah, sorry. The data was compiled by one of the largest dating websites from their user database. See here.

The studies that show greater domestic violence and drug use among homosexuals would seem to indicate self description is not necessarily accurate in this case.

You may be interested in the findings reported here.

Having read a number of studies on this topic, I can tell you that there is some statistical evidence that gays in the US are more prone to deviancy than straights, but their numbers look much better in European countries where homosexuality is more accepted and normalized, and gay behavior is statistically equivalent to the rest of the population. So it seems the widespread American prejudice against gays plays a large role in encouraging them to exhibit deviant behaviors.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. In my view, when evaluating the moral desirability of any X, the question of "How would it be if everyone did X" is a valid one.

Not if behavior X is tied to a relatively low-frequency biological characteristic, it isn't.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited December 12, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

If you say so.

What are we, Pahoran, five years old?

[Pahoran]

Would you feel an obligation to leave the Church if, say, in a few years, President of the Church Dallin Oaks announced a revelation extending temple blessing to Homosexual Marriages?

Would you feel an obligation to chop off your own nose if, say, in a few years, you noticed that your face resembles someone you don't like?

I'm about as uninterested in meaningless hypotheticals as it is possible to get.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Yeah, sorry. The data was compiled by one of the largest dating websites from their user database. See here.

You may be interested in the findings reported here.

Having read a number of studies on this topic, I can tell you that there is some statistical evidence that gays in the US are more prone to deviancy than straights, but their numbers look much better in European countries where homosexuality is more accepted and normalized, and gay behavior is statistically equivalent to the rest of the population. So it seems the widespread American prejudice against gays plays a large role in encouraging them to exhibit deviant behaviors.

Yes, whenever "gays" do bad things of any kind, it's always the fault of those awful "straights."

AFAICT from across the ocean, this alleged "widespread American prejudice against gays" is a myth of the left.

Not if behavior X is tied to a relatively low-frequency biological characteristic, it isn't.

Peace,

-Chris

Except that if "sexual orientation" is any less "socially constructed" than the avant garde so fondly imagine gender to be, then in ancient Greece (and more modern Germany) homosexual behaviour was not tied to any "biological characteristic," low-frequency or otherwise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

AFAICT from across the ocean, this alleged "widespread American prejudice against gays" is a myth of the left.

You can see America from your backyard, is that it?

Well, my good friend Andrey has repeatedly told me that if he ever sees my good friend Parris again, he's going to kick his *** for being such a "fag".

But don't discount what you can see through your binoculars purely on account of my firsthand experience.

[Chris Smith]

BTW, the Newsroom today announced that revelation includes "collaboration and a thorough airing of ideas and diverging views." So there is arguably a place for studies like Petrey's.

[cinepro]

CS, I just noticed you did not give a reference for your graph and I wasinterested in the methodology used. Would you be kind enough to remedy the lack, thank you.

I'm not sure if this is the original source, but it's here among other data:

http://blog.okcupid....s-straight-sex/

It appears to be self-reported info from profiles on the OKCupid dating site.

Edited December 13, 2011 by cinepro

[Pahoran]

BTW, the Newsroom today announced that revelation includes "collaboration and a thorough airing of ideas and diverging views." So there is arguably a place for studies like Petrey's.

Indeed there is.

It's round and metallic, and it's under my desk.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

You can see America from your backyard, is that it?

Well, my good friend Andrey has repeatedly told me that if he ever sees my good friend Parris again, he's going to kick his *** for being such a "fag".

But don't discount what you can see through your binoculars purely on account of my firsthand experience.

Now, Chris. I'm sure your good friend Andrey won't mind you repeating what he said to you; but he might take umbrage at being called "widespread."

Even if his six-pack has grown into a keg.

When a fairly boring, too-preachy revisionist western movie can get every award on offer just because its main characters are "gay," I doubt that the supposed "American prejudice against gays" is any less than balanced by a fairly widespread American grovelling to "gays."

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited December 13, 2011 by Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

BTW, the Newsroom today announced that revelation includes "collaboration and a thorough airing of ideas and diverging views." So there is arguably a place for studies like Petrey's.

Hmm. That is what the NT says. Matt. 18:19. Of course, most members don't understand that so much of church governance is bottom up and consensus planning, as guided by the Spirit. Most members think that the President of the Church speaks ex cathedra.

I suppose that it is theoretically possible that sodomy will be celestialized but as of today, it is considered an abomination and a grave sin. I only believe that because I choose to follow the Brethren. If I weren't so doing, I'd agree with you that there isn't much behind notion that people can sin.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not the one who called them "parasites." Indeed, it is not obvious to me that "a parasitic culture," which was mfbukowski's construct, is semantically equivalent to "a culture of parasites." But I'll let him speak for himself on that issue.

The terminology was harsh; and it probably doesn't really have much meaning. I should have re-thought that remark.

[maklelan]

Sorry I haven't really had time to chime in. I'm compiling some thoughts, but I thought I'd point out a response to Petrey's article written by Joseph Spencer.

[CV75]

I didn't see anything on this, so I thought I would start the ball rolling. Taylor Petrey has an article in Dialogue (available here) entitled, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology." It asks, basically, could there be room in Mormon theology for homosexual sealings? It's a provocative piece. See also the lengthy discussion post at By Common Consent and from Adam Miller.

I didn't read this because I didn't like his movie, "Taylor Petrey's Madea's Family Reunion."