Coming Out Of The Closet - I Love A Gay Man

[why me]

This is the reaction Jesus Christ expects.

H.

Do you think so? When someone in your family gives you an unexpected shock and awe experience, an experience that blinds side you, lets hope that you can be calm and react accordingly. However, it is human nature to have an over-reactiion when surprised by news that can be at first unpleasant and unexpected. Have you had that experience?

But after some thought, lets hope that christian love come into play through reflection and understanding.

Edited April 10, 2012 by why me

[wenglund]

I do not condone and am angry with the nastiness some posters got into (and got banned for as they should have).

As one of those who was banned from both threads, I would really like to know what there was about my comments that you may have found bigoted and nasty.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

BTW, I am all for love between men (brotherly love), having experienced it and expressed it on not a few occasions myself.

What I object to is sexual acts between men or between women, which I view as not only unhealthy, but a defilement of the sacred procreative powers created in us by God.

I also object to the state going beyond permitting such presumed defilements, to sanctioning, and thus encouraging them as well.

And, while I have no problem were some of my fellow saints to think otherwise, I prefer not to participate in the presumed sanctioning of what I view as defilements, but choose instead to express my brother love in other ways--ways that I believe will actually uplift and benefit all parties.

Again, I don't see this as bigoted or nasty, but I am open to being shown otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[beckstcw]

Wade,

Why does the state have an obligation to respect your views of what is a defilement of sacred things over someone else's? You're more than welcome to object personally, and I wouldn't call you a bigot for having those beliefs, but I don't understand how you can let those beliefs actually affect the way you treat another human being, especially if it was a close friend you dearly care about.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Why does the state have an obligation to respect your views of what is a defilement of sacred things over someone else's?

I can't answer that question since it contains a false presupposition--I don't believe the state is obligated to respect my views over others.

You're more than welcome to object personally, and I wouldn't call you a bigot for having those beliefs, but I don't understand how you can let those beliefs actually affect the way you treat another human being, especially if it was a close friend you dearly care about.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. If I view something as immoral, why would that not affect how I treat, in relation to the immorality, those who choose to be engaged in that immorality? In principle, are you assuming that in all ways my treatment of a friend who may be abusing her children should be the same as my treatment of friend who is kind and caring of her children?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

I also object to the state going beyond permitting such presumed defilements, to sanctioning, and thus encouraging them as well.

How does that happen?

The state permits people to worship Satan, to join the KKK, and couples to get married by an Elvis impersonator.

How does permission turn into encouraging, other than in your imagination.

I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. If I view something as immoral, why would that not affect how I treat, in relation to the immorality, those who choose to be engaged in that immorality? In principle, are you assuming that in all ways my treatment of a friend who may be abusing her children should be the same as my treatment of friend who is kind and caring of her children?

Some people considered sexual relations between couples of different races to be immoral. You seem to be suggesting that a restaraunt or hotel owner could refuse to povide service to such a couple, and that such refusal would not be the product of bigotry.

[Damien the Leper]

Some people considered sexual relations between couples of different races to be immoral. You seem to be suggesting that a restaraunt or hotel owner could refuse to povide service to such a couple, and that such refusal would not be the product of bigotry.

You mean like this?:

[wenglund]

How does that happen?

Via legislation or judicial fiat. Obviously.

The state permits people to worship Satan, to join the KKK, and couples to get married by an Elvis impersonator.

Right. Those are things the state permits, though it doesn't sanction them. Do you not understand the difference?

How does permission turn into encouraging, other than in your imagination.

To the well-reasoned minds of those who aren't nuance-challenged, there is an important difference between the state allowing something (like the examples you gave), and the state endorsing or sanctioning something (as the case may be with legalizing so-called same-sex marriages or civil unions).

Some people considered sexual relations between couples of different races to be immoral.

I don't. So, take that up with them.

You seem to be suggesting that a restaraunt or hotel owner could refuse to povide service to such a couple, and that such refusal would not be the product of bigotry.

Speaking of imagination, I suggested nothing of the sort. It didn't, nor would it cross my mind. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Seeking to deny others their agency and condemning them to hell is bigoted and nasty. If you didn't do that then the comments were not meant for you.

[KevinG]

You mean like this?:

In his response to me my freind admitted he had been denied visitation to his partner in the hospital because he was "not family" and denied a raise because he "didn't have children to support".

Perhaps I'm sympathetic because I've been denied employment due to my peculiar religion.

[KevinG]

By the way my comment "fellow religionists" was not limited to this board or Mormon commenters. Ask yourself why you fluttered if you weren't hit?

[Daniel2]

Right. Those are things the state permits, though it doesn't sanction them. Do you not understand the difference?

To the well-reasoned minds of those who aren't nuance-challenged, there is an important difference between the state allowing something (like the examples you gave), and the state endorsing or sanctioning something (as the case may be with legalizing so-called same-sex marriages or civil unions).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Um... Elvis and Liberace impersonators can and do officially and legally marry couples in civil marriage ceremonies (also, see here and here and here and here and... well, hopefully you get that point).

Given the apparent disconnect from the real-life examples vs. your "reasoned" explanation to the contrary, for those of us nuanced-challenged chaps who aren't as well reasond as yourself, can you explain what you mean by "permit/allow" vs. "sanction/endorse" ?

Daniel2

Edited April 10, 2012 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

Seeking to deny others their agency and condemning them to hell is bigoted and nasty. If you didn't do that then the comments were not meant for you.

By the way my comment "fellow religionists" was not limited to this board or Mormon commenters. Ask yourself why you fluttered if you weren't hit?

I was "hit" by your unqualified comments about those who were banned from the related threads. Ask yourself why wouldn't people flutter if they have been hit? Better yet, ask yourself whether you may have swung wildly and inadvertently hit someone who didn't deserve to be hit?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Right. Those are things the state permits, though it doesn't sanction them. Do you not understand the difference?

To the well-reasoned minds of those who aren't nuance-challenged, there is an important difference between the state allowing something (like the examples you gave), and the state endorsing or sanctioning something (as the case may be with legalizing so-called same-sex marriages or civil unions).

You have yet to explain how legalizing same sex marriage constitutes an "endorsement." You simply restated your bald assertion equating the two.

.

It is legal for a prisoner to get married. That doesn't mean the states "ENDORSES" prison marriages?

It is legal to join the KKK. That doesn't mean the state endorses the KKK.

Speaking of imagination, I suggested nothing of the sort. It didn't, nor would it cross my mind. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Yeah, you did. You suggested that you can't be a bigot, BECAUSE your descriminatory treatment of gays is rooted in your moral opposition to homosexuality.

[wenglund]

Um... Elvis and Liberace impersonators can and do officially and legally marry couples in civil marriage ceremonies.

So?

Hopefully you aren't going to confuse the issue of marriage, itself, with the issue of who may be officiating in the marriages.

For those of us nuanced-challenged chaps who aren't as well reasoned as yourself, can you explain what you mean by "permit" vs. "sanction" ?

I will happily go beyond the clear examples I gave and explain further the difference between "allow" vs. "sanction".

A state may "allow" a given actions by not legislating against it. The lack of prohibitive legislation is, at best, a neutral position on the part of the state. Whereas, when the state "sanctions" a behavior or a relationship, it is taking an affirmative position in favor of the behavior. It is the difference between the state NOT enacting laws AGAINST a given behavior or relationship, and the state ENACTING laws IN FAVOR of a given behavior or relationship.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

So?

Hopefully you aren't going to confuse the issue of marriage, itself, with the issue of who may be officiating in the marriages.

I will happily go beyond the clear examples I gave and explain further the difference between "allow" vs. "sanction".

A state may "allow" a given actions by not legislating against it. The lack of prohibitive legislation is, at best, a neutral position on the part of the state. Whereas, when the state "sanctions" a behavior or a relationship, it is taking an affirmative position in favor of the behavior. It is the difference between the state NOT enacting laws AGAINST a given behavior or relationship, and the state ENACTING laws IN FAVOR of a given behavior or relationship.

Does that help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmmm. I'm not sure that it helps, given your seemingly problematic statement that "Those are things ["people to worship Satan, to join the KKK, and couples to get married by an Elvis impersonator"] the state permits, though it doesn't sanction them." (italics added).

To help clarify: Are you saying you believe that the state "permits" Elvis Impersonators to marry? Or is it your opinion that the state "sanctions" and "promotes" marriage by Elivs Impersonators?

Daniel2

Edited April 10, 2012 by Daniel2

[Jaybear]

A state may "allow" a given actions by not legislating against it. The lack of prohibitive legislation is, at best, a neutral position on the part of the state. Whereas, when the state "sanctions" a behavior or a relationship, it is taking an affirmative position in favor of the behavior. It is the difference between the state NOT enacting laws AGAINST a given behavior or relationship, and the state ENACTING laws IN FAVOR of a given behavior or relationship.

Does that help?

The correct term is PERMITTING behaviors not IN FAVOR of behaviors.

You are still drawing an unwarranted conclusion that passing a law permitting certain behavior equates to ENDORSEING or FAVORING said behavior.

[wenglund]

You have yet to explain how legalizing same sex marriage constitutes an "endorsement." You simply restated your bald assertion equating the two.

I am sorry. I thought it was self-evident. However, since in your case it isn't, let me explain some of the basics of legislation.

There are generally at least two types of legislation enacted: those that are designed to prohibit certain kinds of behaviors and relationships, and those that are designed to establish, promote, or encourage certain kinds of behaviors and relationships.

Legislation regarding things like stealing, rape, and murder, fall into the first category, while legislation providing tax incentives, empowerment zones, governmental grants, or the establish of various departments and government-funded projects, fall into the second category.

Legislation that is intended to establish, promote, or encourage certain behaviors and/or relationships, is logically, if not by definition, state sanctioned ("authoritative approval for an action"), or in other words, an endorsement of the action or actions.

Given the "state interest" in legal marriage--not the least of which is procreation, and given the benefits offered by the state to legally married couples, it seems clear that marriage legislation was enacted, in part, to establish, promote, and encourage legal marriage, and thus legal marriage may logically be viewed as state sanctioned and state endorsed.

It is legal for a prisoner to get married. That doesn't mean the states "ENDORSES" prison marriages?

The endorsement of marriage isn't that specific, but it is an endorsement nevertheless--see above.

It is legal to join the KKK. That doesn't mean the state endorses the KKK.

More accurately stated, it isn't illegal to join the KKK. In this case, the state is neither prohibiting this action nor promoting/endorsing it, and so it isn't state endorsed. Whereas, with marriage the state has endorsed marriage--see above.

Yeah, you did. You suggested that you can't be a bigot, BECAUSE your descriminatory treatment of gays is rooted in your moral opposition to homosexuality.

No I didn't--and I am speaking here as the ultimate authority on what I said and meant. You have a serious problem with reading comprehension (if not an over-active imagination), which consists, in part, of you mis-reading things into what I said--things I did not think or say, nor would I have said or thought. Again, please stop putting words into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 10, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

To help clarify: Are you saying you believe that the state "permits" Elvis Impersonators to marry? Or is it your opinion that the state "sanctions" and "promotes" marriage by Elivs Impersonators? Daniel2

The state "permits/allows" Elvis impersonators, who are legally authorized, to perform state "endorsed" marriages. The state also "permits/allows" Elvis impersonators, regardless of legal authority, to perform "non-state-endorsed" marriages.

Please note the important distinction between the subject and the object in relation to "permission" and "endorsement."

Did you get it that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The correct term is PERMITTING behaviors not IN FAVOR of behaviors.

No, that somewhat incoherent statement doesn't correctly reflect my meaning. For the third time, please stop putting words into my mouth.

You are still drawing an unwarranted conclusion that passing a law permitting certain behavior equates to ENDORSING or FAVORING said behavior.

Wrong (see above). You continue to misconstrue my conclusion. You are here conflating my comments about "permitting/allowing" with my comments about "promoting."

Unless you do something about your evident comprehension problem, there is little point in responding to you. I am past wanting to go on unraveling your seemingly persistent convolutions, and am fine with leaving you to enjoy your fog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 10, 2012 by wenglund

[LDSToronto]

Do you think so? When someone in your family gives you an unexpected shock and awe experience, an experience that blinds side you, lets hope that you can be calm and react accordingly. However, it is human nature to have an over-reactiion when surprised by news that can be at first unpleasant and unexpected. Have you had that experience?

But after some thought, lets hope that christian love come into play through reflection and understanding.

I have experienced this, and I have remained calm. Controlling my emotions is my forte.

H.

[LDSToronto]

What I object to is sexual acts between men or between women, which I view as not only unhealthy, but a defilement of the sacred procreative powers created in us by God.

You object to acts between human beings that, for all intents and purposes, are none of your business?

H.

[wenglund]

You object to acts between human beings that, for all intents and purposes, are none of your business? H.

No. I object to the act, itself, and that is my business. Who may or may not be participating in the act, is not my business, nor did I make it my business.

I also object to the government, which is my business, sanctioning objectionable acts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDSToronto]

No. I object to the act, itself, and that is my business. Who may or may not be participating in the act, is not my business, nor did I make it my business.

I also object to the government, which is my business, sanctioning objectionable acts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wait - what "act" are you objecting to? A sexual act? Or the act of marriage?

Edit: Nevermind, I went back to your previous post. You object to homosexual acts. Your objection is noted. You object to homosexual acts and you object to the government sanctioning homosexual acts, acts which you find objectionable.

Would you prefer the government make objectionable homosexual acts illegal? Or is that going to far? Or not far enough?

H.

Edited April 11, 2012 by LDSToronto

[wenglund]

Would you prefer the government make objectionable homosexual acts illegal? Or is that going to far? Or not far enough? H.

To me, that would be going to far. It would over-step the bounds of limited government.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-