Changing The Mormon Conversation On Homosexuality

[Damien the Leper]

"Oh G--!

Do we really need another thread on why "Mormons are wrong about homosexuality"!?!

Is there anything in this propoganda link that hasn't been said at least a hundred times before!?!?!?"

I thought this person summed it up pretty good yesterday?

But the quote you cite has NOTHING to do with what the actual article says. Have you actually read the article or did you decide to comment simply because you disagree with homosexual behavior and sin?

You have shown an utter lack of competency as to what the OP and the article are really about. Your agenda for this thread has been noted.

[John Ping Pong]

Well if you believe that Jesus is Jehovah and that He revealed the Law of Moses here is a condemnation of Homosexuality:

My concern about taking literally the Levitcus passage you quote condemning homosexuality is that, by the same token, we might be obliged to stone Wiccans and disobedient children.

(Though some disobedient children I know could use a good stoning now and then.)

Edited June 27, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[Calm]

deleted just in case it continues to derail the thread...

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

One of you perceives that bullying is widespread and pervasive. The other suggests that from his perspective its nonexistence, what conclusion should I draw?

You wouldn't need to. You also do not need to call for a biased one-sided group to gang up on someone. Its bad form.

[CASteinman]

My concern about taking literally the Levitcus passage you quote condemning homosexuality is that, by the same token, we might be obliged to stone Wiccans and disobedient children.

(Though some disobedient children I know could use a good stoning now and then.)

But you don't have to live the Law of Moses to know that God disapproves of disobedient Children, "Witches" (not sure if that's Wicca or not) and homosexual acts. Even if the disapproval no longer requires us to stone such people, it does not change it to approval.

[CASteinman]

I agree. If anyone 'decides' that bullying isn't real...shows a poor grasp on reality. If anyone suggests that bullying happens to such an extreme without proper documentation or sources...shows a poor grasp on reality. Both are insulting. Both are part of opposing agendas and I whole-heartedly disagree with both.

All that I said was that I had never in 35 years of Church membership ever seen member bully a gay person. I HAVE however, seen the reverse.

Indeed, I think that in my 35 years of Church membership, I have seen perhaps only 3 instances of bullying in any form. One of those instances was a full grown man with poor anger management skills, the other was a woman who would berate and beat down all the other women, emotionally and verbally and the last was a child of a distressed home.

[CASteinman]

Whether there is asterix next to someone's name is probably irrelevant. The fact is, if someone is in a homosexual relationship they will be excommunicated unless they decide to leave the person they love and become celibate. There really isn't any wiggle room for the stake president.

In the end, most gays leave the church either by excommunication or just walk away from it. Those that are straight can not understand why someone who is gay wouldn't choose celibacy. Those that are gay can't understand how someone could choose a life of loneliness and never have love in their lives. This bishop sees the tragedy in that because he presides in an area of the country where there is a lot of faithful gay members. He is trying to find some kind of common ground. But the reality is, there is no common ground. The church can teach tolerance, respect and equality in everything but marriage, but that is about it. Until there is a revelation, the churches hands are tied.

That is one of the best summaries I have seen on the matter.

[selek1]

That is one of the best summaries I have seen on the matter.

Try again,

That is one of the bleakest, most polemical diatribes every conceived by a mind clouded by sin and pride.

"Gays can only choose between loneliness and sin"?

"Straights just can't understand"?

"The Church's hands are tied"?

CaBoy's rant belies the very hopes this Bishop and others (including myself) are expressing, and is a defeatist tissue of hateful, hurtful stereotypes, pride, and self-justification.

It elevates (as I have complained before) the carnal to the supreme, and defines a person wholly and absolutely by their sexual predilections.

How blinded must a mind be that it cannot transcend beyond one's own sexual appetites?

How tinctured by self-doubt must a mind be that it must pigeon-hole the choices of an entire life-time down to just two?

CABoy's monologue denies the very Grace of God, the Gospel, and the miracles that be accomplished through the forgiveness of God and the genuine love of the Saints of God.

Edited June 28, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Try again,

That is one of the bleakest, most polemical diatribes every conceived by a mind clouded by sin and pride.

"Gays have no choices but loneliness or sin"

"Straights just can't understand"

"The Church's hands are tied".

CaBoy's rant belies the very hopes this Bishop and others are expressing, and is a defeatist tissue of hateful, hurtful stereotypes, pride, and self-justification,

It was not written by a person with any grasp of the Grace of God, the Gospel, or the miracle that be accomplished through the forgiveness of God and the genuine love of the Saints of God.

No. He is correct.

It was not a rant. It was a pretty good description of the problem.

The Church is utterly unable to condone homosexual acts. Many if not most homosexuals have a very difficult time and generally find it impossible to change their views either.

It is the most common discussion I have seen on this matter:

Straight: Yes we accept homosexuals but you either have to marry a woman or be celebate.

Gay: So, in the Church I am not allowed to openly be who I am and love the person I want

Straight: You can openly be who you are but you must obey the law of chastity, which includes no sexual relations outside of marriage and marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Gay: So then I am doomed to a life of loneliness -- or I have to leave the Church.

That is the conversation. I have seen it over and over and over.

And, lest you are relying on the idea that homosexuals can be "cured", while that is *possible* it is also so rare as to be a red herring.

Some conditions are intractable. Sorry. That's how it is. Indeed, its possible that that's even how it is supposed to be.

Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[selek1]

No. He is correct.

No- he is not.

That is the conversation. I have seen it over and over and over.

That doesn't mean that the premises or presumptions of the conversation are correct. A lie does not automagically become true simply for being repeated.

"Conventional wisdom" is very often not "wisdom" at all, but prejudice, assumption, and defeatism.

And, lest you are relying on the idea that homosexuals can be "cured", while that is *possible* it is also so rare as to be a red herring.

I wasn't- but thank you for illustrating the nature of the stilted reasoning being touted.

There are more options available to those who suffer from same-sex attraction than you've offered (or been willing to concede).

Some conditions are intractable. Sorry. That's how it is. Indeed, its possible that that's even how it is supposed to be.

This "argument" denies both the grace of God and human agency.

It necessarily reduces human choices, agency, and dignity to a series of false dichotomies and dogmatic myopias..

[CASteinman]

There are more options available to those who suffer from same-sex attraction than you've offered (or been willing to concede).

Why don't you describe these other options?

[Damien the Leper]

But you don't have to live the Law of Moses to know that God disapproves of disobedient Children, "Witches" (not sure if that's Wicca or not) and homosexual acts. Even if the disapproval no longer requires us to stone such people, it does not change it to approval.

You're picking from the Leviticus Buffet...this is poor form. By the same reasoning you provide here the same could be said about the dietary ethics and clothing ethics also described in the Law.

[selek1]

You and CABoy have limited the options to the following:

• Celibacy (ironically, and despite your claims, "loneliness" does not automagically attend this choice).
  
• Leaving the Church.
  

This set is limited and driven by ideology and presumption. It is a false dichotomy. No one is forced to choose one of those two choices.

Logically, everything that does not fall within the set of choices you have defined qualifies as "a choice other than those you've offered."

[CASteinman]

You're picking from the Leviticus Buffet...this is poor form.

Not poor form. Its just that you do not like it. There is a difference.

By the same reasoning you provide here the same could be said about the dietary ethics and clothing ethics also described in the Law.

Except we have specific revelation on the matter of food and modern revelations on other matters. You may not like this, but that is how it is.

[CASteinman]

This set is limited and driven by ideology and presumption. It is a false dichotomy. No one is forced to choose one of those two choices.

Well, you have not quite accurately represented the options I have given, but never mind.

Why don't you describe the other options? (Remember you have agreed that being "cured" or being able to live with a woman as husband and wife is not legitimately one to recommend).

Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[selek1]

Why don't you describe the other options?

I've already defined my terms

"Anything other than what you've offered" is necessarily a very large solution set.

It is you (and CABoy who are attempting to narrow the choices homosexuals face.

The premise is yours.

It is incumbent upon you to show that the premise is correct.

You, yourself have already admitted that there is at least one possible alternative. (Rare or not, the possibility exists- as you yourself admit).

There are still other choices available.

Edited June 28, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

There are still other choices available.

Like leaving the church, you mean?

[CASteinman]

I've already defined my terms

You, yourself have already admitted that there is at least one possible alternative. (Rare or not, the possibility exists- as you yourself admit).

Yes, yet you used the strawman of describing my views as a false dichotomy. And now, apparently you did so knowingly. Which I consider to be extremely uncharitable.

There are still other choices available.

You seem very strong on declaring it to be so and chastising me (falsely) for not recognizing it, yet you don't want to describe this plethora of options.

It is not an honorable way of discussing things.

[selek1]

Like leaving the church, you mean?

No- that was one of the two options CAB and CAS have offered.

As other options exist, they are presenting a false dichotomy.

The situation is not the "either/or" they insist upon.

[selek1]

Yes, yet you used the strawman of describing my views as a false dichotomy.

I am specifically addressing the position CABoy stated and you endorsed.

I am not addressing any other.

Which I consider to be extremely uncharitable.

Those of us who have (as faithful members of the Church) dealt with this issue in our own lives and family, consider CABoy's dichotomy to be equally disreputable, dishonest, polemical, and uncharitable- yet you have not only endorsed it uncritically, you have championed it.

As such, you have made it your own.

By doing so, you have unavoidably accepted the burden of defending it.

You seem very strong on declaring it to be so and chastising me (falsely) for not recognizing it, yet you don't want to describe this plethora of options.

As stated, the premise in dispute is yours, nor mine.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to expect me to catalogue the entire whole of human existence in order to prove you wrong- particularly when the burden of proof is yours.

CABoy insisted that a "homosexual" has only two choices. You endorsed and championed that position. It is incumbent upon you (and your compatriot) to prove that the assertion is correct.

The existence of any valid third choice automatically and inescapably disqualifies that premise- a premise he proposed and you endorsed.

It is not an honorable way of discussing things.

Considering that it is you who is trying to artificially constrain people to one of two choices- and misrepresenting the faithful while doing so- you are in no position to lecture me about "honorable" conduct.

(Remember you have agreed that being "cured" or being able to live with a woman as husband and wife is not legitimately one to recommend).

I have agreed to no such stipulations.

You cannot (in any semblance of honesty or honor) presume to dictate my position.

If you are both honest and honorable (though either will suffice) you will address my position, rather than attempt to dictate it to me.

Edited June 28, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

I do have to offer you kudos in one regard, Steinman.

You are one of only two people on that planet who could engineer a controversy in such a way as to place Valentinus and I on the same side of an ideological divide.

Edited June 28, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Those of us who have (as faithful members of the Church) dealt with this issue in our own lives and family, consider CABoy's dichotomy to be equally disreputable, dishonest, polemical, and uncharitable- yet you have not only endorsed it uncritically, you have championed it.

That is because, although there can be, here and there, variations, by and large, that is THE Choice. Sure, some people manage to do something else. But this is so uncommon that it is a red herring.

As stated, the false dichotomy is yours, nor mine.

Well, if only it were a false dichotomy, you might have a point. But you don't. I notice now that although I have challenged you to present your alternatives 3 times now, you have not managed to come up with any.

It is neither logical nor reasonable to expect me to catalogue the entire whole of human existence in order to prove you wrong- particularly when the burden of proof is yours.

Since there are so many options to choose from -- don't present the world of options. Just give 5 options. Its a short and easy list.

And no... the burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming that I am so wrong and yet you have not shown one scintilla of a reason to think you have any good points at all - and all that remains is some sort of emotional outrage you are experiencing. Now you MIGHT have some good points but why is it so hard for you to make and support them?

[selek1]

That is because, although there can be, here and there, variations, by and large, that is THE Choice. Sure, some people manage to do something else.

Thank you for the admission that other valid choices exist.

By definition, this disqualifies your argument that there were only two choices.

But this is so uncommon that it is a red herring.

In your opinion.

By definition, however, even the possibility of a third (or fourth, or fifth) option invalidates the pedanticism practiced upon us by CABoy and endorsed by yourself.

Commonality- and even probability- are irrelevant. The very existence of an alternative solution is enough.

Thank you for finally admitting that such options exist.

Well, if only it were a false dichotomy, you might have a point. But you don't. I notice now that although I have challenged you to present your alternatives 3 times now, you have not managed to come up with any.

Why would I need to? The burden of proof was yours, not mine.

You also (in a bit of dishonest rhetorical legerdemain) attempted to remove two very real (and valid) choices from the field.

For all your talk about "honorable" conduct, that was a deceitful and manipulative tactic.

You are the one claiming that I am so wrong and yet you have not shown one scintilla of a reason to think you have any good points at all - and all that remains is some sort of emotional outrage you are experiencing. Now you MIGHT have some good points but why is it so hard for you to make and support them?

Asked and answered. Edited June 28, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Thank you for the admission that other choices are possible.

Of course they are possible. I have never said otherwise.

I should point out however, that I work in statistics as a profession. Statistically speaking so many more things are possible than can ever be observed. But once you bring observation into the picture, the statistical "many" things quickly compresses down to very few.

Hence, when I say "possible", I do not by any means intend to convey the idea that this possibility is reasonable. I realize this is not how other people talk and think but to me it is as natural as the sun rising. Speaking of which.. it is POSSIBLE that it will not. But of course, no one is going to plan on that.

And I have said, that these other options are recognized by both sides as generally impractical, for various reasons and most often they are accompanied by words to the effect that "this cannot be considered a recommendation for other people" or even "this should not be an acceptable recommendation to you".

And once again, I have invited you to present the alternatives and you have not done so. 4 times now.

I don't think you can do it.

Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Why would I need to? The burden of proof was yours, not mine.

Incorrect. You claimed I was wrong. It was up to you to show that.

You also (in a bit of dishonest rhetorical legerdemain) attempted to remove two very real (and valid) choices from the field.

Now you are entirely misrepresenting me. I did not make any such attempt.

But what are these two options you insist on?

For all your talk about "honorable" conduct, that was a deceitful and manipulative tactic.

Nonsense. There is no deception in my words. There is nothing manipulative. I have been straight up and above board with you.

You on the other hand have not been so direct. An example of directness would have been to immediately say "No, here are some other options you did not consider".

And ... now... 5 times.... what are those other options you have alluded to?

Edited June 28, 2012 by CASteinman