Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Tacenda]

Hmmm... so did you judge them and their comments righteously?

There is a certain quality of fault finding that is inimical to the peace of the Gospel and to the Spirit of God. Also -- it does not make someone happy. Try! Really! All things work together for the good of them that believe.

I wasn't judging them. Well ok maybe I was.

[Libs]

Is that because all feelings of shame do not come from God or only the feelings of shame that homosexuals have?

I don't believe all feelings of shame come from God, no.

All of us are, at times, made to feel ashamed of things about ourselves, that often we cannot help or is nothing to be ashamed of, to begin with. Most people are very aware of differences and some can be quite cruel in expressing dislike for those differences. For example, physical appearance, physical flaws, cultural differences, accents, or just that a person can't speak your language, frailties, handicaps...these things and many more, have caused shame in people, because they are made fun of or ignored or...been told that they somehow deserve it, because of something they have done in the past (perhaps even in the pre-existence). Some LDS believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence, for example.

So, no, a sense of shame does not always come from God.

[CASteinman]

So, no, a sense of shame does not always come from God.

Does it ever? Or is it if you are homosexual you can be sure it didn't?

[Libs]

Does it ever?

Of course. We are all sinners and hopefully feel shame and repentance for any real sin.

Or is it if you are homosexual you can be sure it didn't?

Homosexuals sin and make mistakes just like the rest of us. But, being born gay is not a sin (and I'm sure you agree with that, at least). I would take it a step further and say, neither is acting upon that natural orientation, if the "action" is with good intent, in a committed relationship...in other words, if it is coming from genuine love and caring. There is nothing shameful in that. Homosexual or heterosexual, if the relationship is uncommitted and coming from lust or other unrighteous feelings/behavior, then of course shame would be and should be a part of it.

[CASteinman]

But, being born gay is not a sin (and I'm sure you agree with that, at least).

I don't know that anyone is born gay.

I would take it a step further and say, neither is acting upon that natural orientation, if the "action" is with good intent, in a committed relationship...in other words, if it is coming from genuine love and caring. There is nothing shameful in that. Homosexual or heterosexual, if the relationship is uncommitted and coming from lust or other unrighteous feelings/behavior, then of course shame would be and should be a part of it.

Would that also be true for the pure and natural attraction of genuine loving and caring between a boy and a girl -- brother and sister in the same family -- who wanted to be in a committed relationship, have relations and have children together? Would that also be as pure and shameless despite the teachings of the Gospel?

What about a similar love between a father and his adult daughter? No problems?

Or are there possibly conditions and boundaries?

[Libs]

I don't know that anyone is born gay.

Ah, really?

Would that also be true for the pure and natural attraction of genuine loving and caring between a boy and a girl -- brother and sister in the same family -- who wanted to be in a committed relationship, have relations and have children together? Would that also be as pure and shameless despite the teachings of the Gospel?

What about a similar love between a father and his adult daughter? No problems?

Or are there possibly conditions and boundaries?

Of course, there are boundries. Why do critics sometimes think that just because one finds ss relationships acceptable that it will lead down a slippery slope to....relationships with livestock or some such nonsense?

[TAO]

Of course, there are boundries. Why do critics sometimes think that just because one finds ss relationships acceptable that it will lead down a slippery slope to....relationships with livestock or some such nonsense?

Because slippery slopes have happened before. Like... just civil unions at first... and then, later, marriages too.

He is worried that just as years ago, they didn't find homosexuality appropriate, but now they do, that perhaps something similar could occur with these other situations. Especially considering they can be justified in the same ways, if you know what I mean.

Edited August 15, 2012 by TAO

[CASteinman]

Ah, really?

Yes, really. I do not know that anyone was born gay.

Of course, there are boundries. Why do critics sometimes think that just because one finds ss relationships acceptable that it will lead down a slippery slope to....relationships with livestock or some such nonsense?

Because the logic behind accepting same sex relationships applies to all manner of relationships that are considered bizarre or perverse.

For example, you used the logic of the relationships being sincere and loving and committed. Under that rubric it would see that a father should be able to marry his daughter. But if these criteria are insufficient to allow a father to marry his daughter, then those same criteria are insufficient to allow two people of the same sex to marry.

Of course the gay rights crowd says "Well we are not pushing for that". But that is irrelevant. The logic behind their position is the same as the logic behind other similarly unacceptable (by gospel or other standards) marriage relationships.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[Libs]

Because slippery slopes have happened before. Like... just civil unions at first... and then, later, marriages too.

He is worried that just as years ago, they didn't find homosexuality appropriate, but now they do, that perhaps something similar could occur with these other situations. Especially considering they can be justified in the same ways, if you know what I mean.

I don't, really (know what you mean). There has been no "slippery slope" (unless one considers interracial marriage a slippery slope) which I know you don't, TAO, but believe it or not, many did, and made exactly this same argument, against it. Whenever change has been in the wind, there will be some who resist it, regardless of the very best arguments put forward, in it's favor. These slippery slope arguments are at the bottom of the barrel, IMHO...when there are no more good arguments to be made against the actual change that is being proposed.

[Libs]

Yes, really. I do not know that anyone was born gay.

Because the logic behind accepting same sex relationships applies to all manner of relationships that are considered bizarre or perverse.

For example, you used the logic of the relationships being sincere and loving and committed. Under that rubric it would see that a father should be able to marry his daughter. But if these criteria are insufficient to allow a father to marry his daughter, then those same criteria are insufficient to allow two people of the same sex to marry.

Of course the gay rights crowd says "Well we are not pushing for that". But that is irrelevant. The logic behind their position is the same as the logic behind other similarly unacceptable (by gospel or other standards) marriage relationships.

There are real health concerns that make a prohibition against marrying close relatives very sensible. Like I said, this slippery slope argument is no argument at all.

[TAO]

I don't, really (know what you mean).

You live in Cali with me. When civil unions passed, the argument was made, 'it's just civil unions, we aren't touching mairrage'.

Now, look at this whole issue with Prop 8. It didn't turn out to be just civil unions. Marriage got involved. The justification 'we won't do that; we have boundaries', failed here.

Whenever change has been in the wind, there will be some who resist it, regardless of the very best arguments put forward, in it's favor.

Of course. And there will be some who support it, regardless of the very best arguments put forward, against it. People are very stubborn. Me included =).

These slippery slope arguments are at the bottom of the barrel, IMHO...when there are no more good arguments to be made against the actual change that is being proposed.

Why so? If civil unions weren't enough of a barrier to protect marriage, how can we expect things to stop with this other barrier you are suggesting? How can we expect a different barrier to hold, if the old one did not?

Edited August 15, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

There are real health concerns that make a prohibition against marrying close relatives very sensible. Like I said, this slippery slope argument is no argument at all.

Marrying your close relatives only is a health concern if you have children though, I think. Is that right?

Edited August 15, 2012 by TAO

[Libs]

Marrying your close relatives only is a health concern if you have children though, I think. Is that right?

Yes, that's correct. But, I think it would be very unethical to require that people not have children within a marriage...don't you? Can't see the State doing that. Besides, how many fathers and daughters do you see out there, petitioning for the right to marry? I know of not one.

[CASteinman]

There are real health concerns that make a prohibition against marrying close relatives very sensible. Like I said, this slippery slope argument is no argument at all.

So, since its only about health concerns then two brothers who are gay should be able to marry each other or a father should be able to marry his son.

mmm hmmm.

[Libs]

So, since its only about health concerns then two brothers who are gay should be able to marry each other or a father should be able to marry his son.

mmm hmmm.

Do you know of any such relationships? I sure don't.

When this becomes a "real" issue, then perhaps we can discuss it.

In the meantime...

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[CASteinman]

Besides, how many fathers and daughters do you see out there, petitioning for the right to marry? I know of not one.

I don't personally know of any two men or two women petitioning for the right to marry. I only hear about it now because it is in the news. But it used to be that it was not even in the news and I never heard about it.

The Slippery Slope is, in actuality, occurring as we watch. Time marches on and standards of human behavior disolve.

[CASteinman]

Do you know of any such relationships?

Oh, you mean this should only matter if I know of such people? And if I do not know any gay people who want to get married THAT in itself is a good reason for me to not care?

Your argument has fallen apart and your subsequent response is literally an argument from ignorance.

To me this is the very core problem with the gay rights agenda... They are unable to show how their logic does not destroy all meaning in marriage. When challenged on this in a reasonable way ... they say.. ignore it.. never mind... that would never happen.

Well... actually if you search around you can find people who do want to marry their children... their parents.. their pets. So.. it does happen.

Your response to me is akin to saying.. lets talk about closing that door after the horse has left the barn.

Well.. I want to worry about the horses escaping BEFORE they get away. That is the right time to deal with it.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[TAO]

Do you know of any such relationships? I sure don't.

When this becomes a "real" issue, then perhaps we can discuss it.

In the meantime...

I don't know of those, no. I do remember a while back a brother wanting to marry a sister, but that's pretty much it.

[CASteinman]

I don't know of those, no. I do remember a while back a brother wanting to marry a sister, but that's pretty much it.

Well.. that's different. Once there is gay marriage, I am sure that there will never be any two brothers who want to get married -- if for no other reason than the tax and related benefits.

Nahh... never happen. Liberals assure us this is a completely unrealistic scenario. We can trust them because they are always right about the consequences of their policies. Particularly when they are opposed to the teachings of God and the Prophets and Apostles.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[california boy]

Slippery slope arguments are never arguments. They are as valid as reading tea leaves to read the future. There is not a single issue that I could not make a slippery slope arguement to support.

It seems like this slippery slope argument along with marrying barn animals comes up regularly when talking about gay marriage. Is there ANY evidence that marriage between brother and sister, father and daughter is a growing concern? How big of issue is this kind of coupling? Juse where are the facts on this matter? Statistics? I mean a lot of gay marriages have now taken place and are legal. This issue must be rearing its head by now. So show us what you got to support your strawman argument.

Edited August 15, 2012 by california boy

[Calm]

Ah, really?

Could you go into a nursery filled with a two hundred children, having access to DNA scans and any other info you desire, and be able to pick out them sixish children who would identify themselves as gay some time in their future?

If not, at what time in their life can they be identified as gay and on what basis? And if that identification is solid and even biologically based, can it be assumed that nothing happened between birth and identification time that might have influenced a possible tendency to lean toward stronger homosexual feelings to become fully homosexual. IOW, no matter what path that individual had traveled eventually he would identify himself as gay or at least recognize that he had feelings of attraction for the same sex.

Edited August 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Of course. We are all sinners and hopefully feel shame and repentance for any real sin.

Homosexuals sin and make mistakes just like the rest of us. But, being born gay is not a sin (and I'm sure you agree with that, at least). I would take it a step further and say, neither is acting upon that natural orientation, if the "action" is with good intent, in a committed relationship...in other words, if it is coming from genuine love and caring. There is nothing shameful in that. Homosexual or heterosexual, if the relationship is uncommitted and coming from lust or other unrighteous feelings/behavior, then of course shame would be and should be a part of it.

Does that also include polygamous relationships?

[Deborah]

Slippery slope arguments are never arguments.

Oh, really. As an example Social Security was supposed to be a temporary insurance program. What a slippery slope that has been.

[ERayR]

Ah, really?

Of course, there are boundries. Why do critics sometimes think that just because one finds ss relationships acceptable that it will lead down a slippery slope to....relationships with livestock or some such nonsense?

Because when you start moving the boundaries there is always one more special interest to move then for.

[ERayR]

Slippery slope arguments are never arguments. They are as valid as reading tea leaves to read the future. There is not a single issue that I could not make a slippery slope arguement to support.

It seems like this slippery slope argument along with marrying barn animals comes up regularly when talking about gay marriage. Is there ANY evidence that marriage between brother and sister, father and daughter is a growing concern? How big of issue is this kind of coupling? Juse where are the facts on this matter? Statistics? I mean a lot of gay marriages have now taken place and are legal. This issue must be rearing its head by now. So show us what you got to support your strawman argument.

What is a real concern and may well be the next in line is legalizing adult - child relationships.