Youtube Vid: It Gets Better With Mormon Family And Friends

[LDSToronto]

Maybe I'm just hardened by my apostasy, but I'll never understand why Mormons care so much about homosexuality. Why not just be happy when someone finds love, regardless of gender?

H>

[wenglund]

Maybe I'm just hardened by my apostasy, but I'll never understand why Mormons care so much about homosexuality. Why not just be happy when someone finds love, regardless of gender? H>

I don't know if it is because you are hardened in your apostasy, or if it is because you haven't learned the importance difference between love and sexuality, or both. Either way, I am amused that you care so much about our caring so much.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

A major assumption I have seen in this thread is the assumption that we know for a fact that homosexuality goes against the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation.

The assumption seems to be that it is something that certain parties are trying to "reconcile" with the Gospel. That to live life as an open homosexual would necessarily entail "dying in one's sins." That to live as a homosexual is to be "decadent" (a word found nowhere in scripture). That to repent and "fully embrace the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel" one must necessarily make an Abrahamic Sacrifice of one's sexuality. That if one chooses to live as an open homosexual, a supposed corollary is that they might not have sufficiently "sought the grace and divine help necessary to align their lives" with the Gospel.

These are all begging the question....

Not to derail things much further, I can accept that the question for you may still be begged.

However, for me, and I suspect for virtually all LDS, and most all religionists, the question has long been settled, perhaps not to a factual degree, but to a very high degree of confidence--your creative interpretation of scripture notwithstanding.

For us, certain things don't need to be spelled out in no uncertain term for us to get them. Indeed, things like homosexuality as a sin seem so obvious to us as to go without saying.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDSToronto]

I don't know if it is because you are hardened in your apostasy, or if it is because you haven't learned the importance difference between love and sexuality, or both. Either way, I am amused that you care so much about our caring so much.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Enlighten us - what is the difference between love and sexuality? And because you have identified an "importance difference", does that mean you are OK with two men falling in love with one another and living as husband and husband?

H.

Edited May 1, 2012 by LDSToronto

[LDSToronto]

Not to derail things much further, I can accept that the question for you may still be begged.

However, for me, and I suspect for virtually all LDS, and most all religionists, the question has long been settled, perhaps not to a factual degree, but to a very high degree of confidence--your creative interpretation of scripture notwithstanding.

For us, certain things don't need to be spelled out in no uncertain term for us to get them. Indeed, things like homosexuality as a sin seem so obvious to us as to go without saying.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your religious belief informs you that homosexuality is a sin, and so that makes it wrong for everyone, including those who do not share your religious belief?

Is that correct?

H.

[smac97]

Maybe I'm just hardened by my apostasy, but I'll never understand why Mormons care so much about homosexuality. Why not just be happy when someone finds love, regardless of gender?

H>

I'm curious as to whether you support Affirmation. You know, that group that is not content with the live-and-let-live philosophy you're talking about, and instead has publicly attacked the Church and demanded that it alter its doctrines to conform to its views.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LDSToronto]

I'm curious as to whether you support Affirmation. You know, that group that is not content with the live-and-let-live philosophy you're talking about, and instead has publicly attacked the Church and demanded that it alter its doctrines to conform to its views.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sure that people would embrace live-and-let-live if the LDS church did the same. But the church hasn't adopted that philosophy, has it?

H.

[smac97]

I'm sure that people would embrace live-and-let-live if the LDS church did the same. But the church hasn't adopted that philosophy, has it?

H.

Affirmation is decidedly not embracing the live-and-let-live philosophy you espouse.

And I notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you support Affirmation? Perhaps more specifically, do you support its demands made of the LDS Church to alter its doctrines to decategorize homosexual conduct as a sin?

Thanks,

-Smac

[LDSToronto]

Affirmation is decidedly not embracing the live-and-let-live philosophy you espouse.

And I notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you support Affirmation? Perhaps more specifically, do you support its demands made of the LDS Church to alter its doctrines to decategorize homosexual conduct as a sin?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry... honestly, I've never heard of Affirmation so I can't say either way. You may find this odd but I support a church's right to call whatever it wants a sin. I also believe that once a church makes an attempt to foist it's beliefs on the public, it is fair game.

H.

[wenglund]

Enlighten us - what is the difference between love and sexuality?

Think of both in relation to you and your mother and children. Are you getting the picture now?

And because you have identified an "importance difference", does that mean you are OK with two men falling in love with one another and living as husband and husband? H.

No. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 1, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Your religious belief informs you that homosexuality is a sin, and so that makes it wrong for everyone, including those who do not share your religious belief?

Is that correct?

H.

No, you are not correct.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDSToronto]

Think of both in relation to you and your mother and children. Are you getting the picture now?

OK... now think of both in relation to you and your spouse. That relation can and does exist between same-sex couples and is just as real.

H.

[LDSToronto]

No, you are not correct.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah, then your religious belief has little to no bearing on how others should live their lives.

H.

[smac97]

Sorry... honestly, I've never heard of Affirmation so I can't say either way. You may find this odd but I support a church's right to call whatever it wants a sin. I also believe that once a church makes an attempt to foist it's beliefs on the public, it is fair game.

H.

Fair enough, though I question the legitimacy of calling the Church's efforts to let its views be injected into public discourse "an attempt to foist its beliefs on the public." That's a rather common trope used to stifle the Church's voice and discourage it from contributing to the public discussion on such matters. I doubt you would say that gay rights groups "attempt to foist their beliefs on the public" (though, given the proclivity of such groups to use litigation rather than the legislative process to further its objectives, the verb "foist" seems far more aptly described to them than to the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2012 by smac97

[sethpayne]

Jeremy,

You're way off-topic. Please get back on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps this should be branched off to become a focused discussion so you can have absolute control over thread content?

I, for one, am enjoying reading the interesting conversation and find the different viewpoints expressed fascinating. Just my $.02.

[sethpayne]

I doubt you would say that gay rights groups "attempt to foist their beliefs on the public" (though, given the proclivity of such groups to use litigation rather than the legislative process to further its objectives, the verb "foist" seems far more aptly described to them than to the Church).

I can't speak for LDST but my reaction to the above statement is ... "Duh! Of course gay rights groups are trying to foist their beliefs upon the public." I don't think they would even deny this fact.

Every advocacy group is trying to push its own viewpoint and agenda. This isn't a bad thing; its just the nature of modern public discourse. The more freely ideas are "pushed" and argued, the more likely it is that discourse will result in workable compromise and understanding.

[selek1]

I can't speak for LDST but my reaction to the above statement is ... "Duh! Of course gay rights groups are trying to foist their beliefs upon the public." I don't think they would even deny this fact.

Every advocacy group is trying to push its own viewpoint and agenda. This isn't a bad thing; its just the nature of modern public discourse. The more freely ideas are "pushed" and argued, the more likely it is that discourse will result in workable compromise and understanding.

If this were true, then LDST and the others wouldn't be trying so hard to portray such involvement as somehow inappropriate or even sinister.

If this were true, then we would not have seen calls from gay rights groups demanding that the Church be stripped of its tax-exempt status and Mormons (and other pro-marriage groups) punished and even disenfranchaised for their advocacy.

No- contrary to your claims, we are not witnessing a contest of ideas or a debate over opinions.

We are watching, in rea-time, a coordinated effort to delegitimize, stigmatize, and ultimately silence advocates of traditional marriage and Gospel morality.

Far, far too much of the narrative of the gay marriage crowd has not been, "We disagree- and here's why."

It has, instead been "Shut up!" and "How DARE you disagree with us in public!?!" followed by name calling.

That's not dialogue.

It's not discussion.

And it's not the way a reasoning, thinking people set about determing policy in a pluralistic society.

Edited May 1, 2012 by selek1

[sethpayne]

.....

And it's not the way a reasoning, thinking people set about determing policy in a pluralistic society.

I agree. Radicals exist on both sides and these radicals make discourse difficult because of their antagonism and their desire not to add substantive ideas to the debate but rather, to be disruptive for its own sake.

The SSM debate should be dealt with strictly on the merits of each respective argument. Any attempt to marginalize or silence any party to the debate should become cultural taboo.

[Kenngo1969]

I agree. Radicals exist on both sides ...

If, by "both sides," you mean to put the Church of Jesus Christ on one side, then the difference is that one cannot swing a dead rat by the tail on one side without hitting a radical, while on the Church's side, one could throw that dead rat as far as one could ... and still hot hit a "radical." Thanks fer playin'!

[wenglund]

OK... now think of both in relation to you and your spouse. That relation can and does exist between same-sex couples and is just as real. H.

I can't tell from your somewhat tangential response whether you yet understand the important difference between love and sexuality. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Ah, then your religious belief has little to no bearing on how others should live their lives. H.

Not exactly. Have you ever heard the phrase: "No man is an island"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

I can't tell from your somewhat tangential response whether you yet understand the important difference between love and sexuality. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Classic Wade. Coy and condescending.

In this case, however, I am genuinely puzzled on what special insights you think you have to offer the public on the subjects of love and sexuality.

[wenglund]

Classic Wade. Coy and condescending.

In this case, however, I am genuinely puzzled on what special insights you think you have to offer the public on the subjects of love and sexuality.

I am deeply touched by the depth of humility and self-awareness and remarkable lack of hypocrisy in your response to me. I can see now that it was quite absurd for me to think that I could offer any insights, let alone special insights, to someone of your unapproachable intellectual caliber. I am entirely unworthy of your consideration and feel eternally indebted that you would even pay me the unwarranted courtesy of a drive-by, wave-of-the-hand dismissal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

I am deeply touched by the depth of humility and self-awareness and remarkable lack of hypocrisy in your response to me. I can see now that it was quite absurd for me to think that I could offer any insights, let alone special insights, to someone of your unapproachable intellectual caliber. I am entirely unworthy of your consideration and feel eternally indebted that you would even pay me the unwarranted courtesy of a drive-by, wave-of-the-hand dismissal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah, I see you are trying your hand at sarcasm as a deflective tool. That is new one.

Let me remind you, here is the simple question that LDS Toronto asked which you painstakenly avoided answering, all the while pretending to have key insight:

"Why not just be happy when someone finds love, regardless of gender?"

So then Wade, why not? And, while you are at it, what is "the important difference between love and sexuality" of which you speak, and that you suggest LDST may not understand?

[LDSToronto]

I can't tell from your somewhat tangential response whether you yet understand the important difference between love and sexuality. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know what love is. But sexuality - that's a complex topic. When you say 'sexuality' do you mean gender identity, sexual orientation, gender roles, biological composition, sexual behaviour, sexual attraction, some combination of the aforementioned, or something different altogether?

But enough games - I'll cop to it - I don't know what you define as the important difference is between love and sexuality. So tell us.

H.