Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Bikeemikey]

LOL, I did no such thing.

Yeah you did.

I disagree with Cali boys perspective on this issue, but you did make the comparison which warrants his response.

Any such comparison, even as tangential as the one you made promotes the idea that homosexuals are less than human. It is just not appropriate.

[Kemara]

Yeah you did.

No I did not. Try and get past the word bestiality to see what I actually did. I applied the LOGIC Californiaboy was promoting, I made no comparison between homosexual sex and bestiality.

The logic of this would also need to be applied to all situations in the bible where sexual acts are condemned.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Kemara

[Bikeemikey]

No I did not. Try and get past the word bestiality to see what I actually did. I applied the LOGIC Californiaboy was promoting, I made no comparison between homosexual sex and bestiality.

Aren't you in New Zealand - your up late.

As a basic practice this is an emotionally charged conversation. Any inclusion of the idea of sex with/marriage to animals, or the perversion of sexual relations with children is baiting and inappropriate.

Their are many conclusions of logic that are extreme and advantageous in this style of discussion. I was censured in this point only a few days ago... It is good to be reminded.

[Kemara]

Aren't you in New Zealand - your up late.

As a basic practice this is an emotionally charged conversation. Any inclusion of the idea of sex with/marriage to animals, or the perversion of sexual relations with children is baiting and inappropriate.

Their are many conclusions of logic that are extreme and advantageous in this style of discussion. I was censured in this point only a few days ago... It is good to be reminded.

Yes, I am up late, trying to get a presentation finalised. I am on a dealine.

The inclusion of the idea of sex with/marriage to animals is baiting only when it is intended as bait. I used the exact parameters that California boy presented as his logic and applied that logic to another situation in the exact fashion that California boy used it. There was no baiting taking place.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Kemara

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, I am up late, trying to get a presentation finalised. I am on a dealine.

The inclusion of the idea of sex with/marriage to animals is baiting only when it is intended as bait.

Where in nz are you from - I'm from chch.

If only that was true. The impact of baiting is judged by the person who is on the receiving end of the comments - whether intended as baiting or not.

That is simply why absolute avoidance of some comments can be helpful. Especially when there is no advantage from that avenue of criticism.

[Tacenda]

The problem with your response to me is that I have never said homosexual behavior is not a sin. Yes I agree the Bible calls homosexual behavior a sin. The Bible also calls heterosexual a sin and an abomination as well. Would you agree with that? However heterosexual behavior within the bonds of marriage is acceptable and moral. Would you agree with that? Has the church not stated over and over again that ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong? Haven't people on this very board said that sex outside of marriage for a gay person is just as wrong as sex outside of marriage is for a straight man?

Is all I am saying is we do not know from God whether homosexual behavior within the bonds of marriage is also moral because at this time God has not spoken on this subject. Right now, it is just church policy.

Let me give you a senerio which is completely speculation, and not a statement of my hope or belief. Suppose the supreme court grants the right of gay marriage and it becomes the law of the land. Suppose other Christian churches choose to start marrying gay couples. Suppose that the next generation of church members feels the church is just being bigoted by not also allowing gay marriage. Suppose this becomes such a big issue that the prophet goes to the Lord and asks Him if the church should include gay families in the church. And suppose the answer to that question is YES. And suppose the church issues a statement that this policy will now be changed. All are welcome in the church of Christ including gay couples. My guess is that we will see faithful members saying on this very board that the church never claimed not allowing gay marriage was doctrine from God but just policy by men of their time. Does this all sound familiar to you? Has this kind of thing happened before?

I am not saying this will happen, I am not hoping this will happen. I am only pointing out the difference between revealed doctrine and church policy. There is no other church that recognizes the importance of marriage in strengthening families more than the Mormon church. There is no church that encourages it's members to get married more than the Mormon church. There is no church that speaks out against all sex outside the bonds of marriage more than this church. We are commanded by God to get married. "It is not good for man to be alone". Is it so unconceivable that at some point God would want to encourage gay couples to quit living in sin and be married and raise their children in that institution? Is it so unconceivable that God wants all of His children to find happiness, love and fulfillment that marriage brings? Does a gay man also need a helpmate in life?

Since this seems to be something that some members of this board seem to miss constantly, let me state again. I am not pushing for such a thing to happen. I am not justifying homosexuality. I am not trying to get the church to change their position on ssm. I am not asking anyone to accept what I have speculated on. I am only discussing the concept. This is a discussion board. It is not a place that doctrine is decided upon. Are we clear on that? If anyone makes such a claim against me, I am simply going to paste this paragraph as a response. lol. I feel like I am writing a clause to a contract.

You don't have to paste this again for me. I get it.

[Kemara]

If only that was true. The impact of baiting is judged by the person who is on the receiving end of the comments - whether intended as baiting or not.

I disagree:

1. 
   bait
   

verb

 /bāt/ 

baited, past participle; baited, past tense; baiting, present participle; baits, 3rd person singular present

• Deliberately annoy or taunt (someone)
  
  • - the other boys reveled in baiting him about his love of literature
    

1. 
   

[Bikeemikey]

I disagree:

1. 
   bait
   

verb

 /bāt/ 

baited, past participle; baited, past tense; baiting, present participle; baits, 3rd person singular present

• Deliberately annoy or taunt (someone)
  
  • - the other boys reveled in baiting him about his love of literature
    

1. 
   

Unfortunately, though you may not be intended to bait, or trying to be provocative the fact remains, the subject matter requires more caution than using unnecessary and extreme metaphors/comparisons.

It is a human consideration.

[california boy]

Speculation is okay, but I must admit I tend to dislike such topics on this board regardless of topic. But, for a bowl of Trix I will state the following: I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ is running solely on policy today, but I think their position is based upon scripture. It is possible for revelation to address this topic anew under the context of all things are possible. However, that this topic is fundamental to God's teachings on morality, the purpose of creation, and sin.

I do think that the Church has answered in an incomplete manner when it has, and members have, stated that we only express our sexuality within the bonds of matrimony. That is only part of the answer, a good one, but only part of the whole answer. Fundamentally, SSA is completely at odds with God's teachings on the purpose of creation and the meaning of being a man or a woman. Further, I believe it is self-evident that biology and science clearly declares that man is made for a woman and vice-versa.

I do not equate this topic with the topic of the priesthood or any other topic. This stands alone and is only being discussed because of the force-fed media devotion to making SSA acceptable in most soceities of the world. I tire of the onslaught of evening television that wants to dictate to me how loving, how normal, how funny, gay people are and how I need to accept them as they are. As for me, if someone wants to be gay, I say knock yourself out, but do it with your eyes open. Understand what type of culture you are getting yourself into; few are as self-destructive and so completely hedonistic. Purely from a cultural position I find a problem with gay life. (Yes, I know you are not pushing a position of any kind, this is a discussion and I hope you understand that I am just discussing and not directying anything at you personally.)

Fair enough. I appreciate your post and i appreciate your views and perspective on this subject. That is what this discussion board is all about. The reason I posted these questions is to hear different points of view. Heck I don't even know what my point of view is on the subject. Just something I was thinking about as a result of this thread.

[california boy]

Where in nz are you from - I'm from chch.

If only that was true. The impact of baiting is judged by the person who is on the receiving end of the comments - whether intended as baiting or not.

That is simply why absolute avoidance of some comments can be helpful. Especially when there is no advantage from that avenue of criticism.

I served my mission in New Zealand. Mostly in the Auckland area. I love that country and mostly the people. I need to go back to visit.

[Kemara]

Unfortunately, though you may not be intended to bait, or trying to be provocative the fact remains, the subject matter requires more caution than using unnecessary and extreme metaphors/comparisons.

It is a human consideration.

Extreme comparison is relative and I do not believe that the comparison I used was extreme. The comparative example was from the bible (a parameter set by California boy), it was sexual in nature (a parameter set by California boy), the bible calls it a sin (a parameter set by California boy), God has not explicitly spoken on the subject in relation to whether it would be moral or immoral within the bonds of marriage (a parameter set by California boy).

Bestiality is an appropriate comparative example, it meets all the parameters set out in the logic used by California boy and it is an act that people engage in and attempt to moralise.

[Bikeemikey]

Extreme comparison is relative and I do not believe that the comparison I used was extreme. The comparative example was from the bible (a parameter set by California boy), it was sexual in nature (a parameter set by California boy), the bible calls it a sin (a parameter set by California boy), God has not explicitly spoken on the subject in relation to whether it would be moral or immoral within the bonds of marriage (a parameter set by California boy).

Bestiality is an appropriate comparative example, it meets all the parameters set out in the logic used by California boy and it is an act that people engage in and attempt to moralise.

To cali boy: My parents both served in the Auckland mission. When were you serving, I am assuming you are probably to young to have served when they did.

It hinders your argument not at all to act with some degree of restraint and compassion on this topic.

It is extreme to the recipient of the comparison, there is no downside from adjusting your comparison, or not using it at all, as such, the aggressive harshness of your comparison as received by some warrants a reassessment of its use.

Is it reasonable to use the comparison, perhaps based on a purely logical or rational assessment (though not all agree on this) tibia certainly not reasonable when you factor in the human considerations.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Bestiality is an appropriate comparative example, it meets all the parameters set out in the logic used by California boy and it is an act that people engage in and attempt to moralise.

I agree with much of your argument regarding homosexuality as sinful based on our theology and scripture. This his not about how accurate you are.

I made a similar comment to California Boy about his attempt to insert a theological idea that god may be fine with homosexuality between married couples. I am not a homosexual and as such cant critique him from within his community. I still told him such a position was not productive.

I am however LDS, as such when other LdS make such comparisons it becomes perceived as speech on behalf of my faith. Such comparisons will not help our LDS community, they will not help our relationships with our homosexual brothers and sisters, and those who hear members of the church say that would rightfully have concerns about the homosexual narrative in our community.

Homosexuality maybe sin, those dealing with such issues do not deserve comparisons that dehumanize their character.

As an LDS member I find our constant fall back to such comparisons totally lacking in love and compassion and fundamentally unchristlike.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Kemara]

Bikeemikey, I appreciate your opinion on my conduct, I support your right to hold it and to express it. I support California boys right to hold and express his opinion of my conduct as well. I also have an opinion about my conduct which I have expressed.

[california boy]

To cali boy: My parents both served in the Auckland mission. When were you serving, I am assuming you are probably to young to have served when they did.

I was there from 1969-1971. When were your parents there?

[Bikeemikey]

Bikeemikey, I appreciate your opinion on my conduct, I support your right to hold it and to express it. I support California boys right to hold and express his opinion of my conduct as well. I also have an opinion about my conduct which I have expressed.

Where in nz are you based?

[wenglund]

Aren't you in New Zealand - your up late.

As a basic practice this is an emotionally charged conversation. Any inclusion of the idea of sex with/marriage to animals, or the perversion of sexual relations with children is baiting and inappropriate.

Their are many conclusions of logic that are extreme and advantageous in this style of discussion. I was censured in this point only a few days ago... It is good to be reminded.

I am sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily privilege homosexuals. They are no more or less deserving of protection from offense than the rest of us. Comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships is offensive. The very suggestion of SSM has long been highly offensive to those of us who value the basic civil right of marriage (as defined as between a man and a woman) and the foundational institution of society and who don't wish to see it bastardized. If we are going to let homosexuals profane the sacred, then we should be allowed to demonstrate that profanation n principle and in a ways they may understand. We aren't equating homosexual sex with bestiality or pedophilia,. Rather, we are drawing reasonable comparisons as comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships, and suggesting that the same emotive reasoning used to bastardize marriage through legalizing SSM is the same reasoning that could be used to bastardize marriage through legalizing other non-traditional marriages. If people can't handle valid arguments by analogy, then they ought to get out of the whole debate on SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 11, 2012 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

I am sorry, but you don't get to privilege homosexuals. They are no more or less deserving protection from offense that the rest of us. Te very suggestion of SSM has long been highly offensive to those of us who value the basic civil right of marriage (as defined as between a man and a woman) and the foundational institution of society and who don't wish to see it bastardized. If we are going to let homosexuals profane the sacred, then we should be allowed to demonstrate that profanation n principle and in a ways they may understand. We aren't equating homosexual sex with bestiality or pedophilia,. Rather, we are suggesting that the same emotive reasoning used to bastardize marriage through legalizing SSM is the same reasoning that could be used to bastardize marriage through legalizing other non-traditional marriages. If people can't handle valid arguments by analogy, then they ought to get out of the whole debate on SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know... I said as much... And I also didn't.

I also posted to California boy suggesting he stop the suggesting that god doesn't think homosexuality is a sin. That's insulting and nonproductive.

However, I am not homosexual and do not feel that California boy is representing a group I belong to.

Kemera is however LDS, as such statements made by him are at risk of being considered a representation of a broader LDS narrative. As such, I am more concerned with the lack of sensitivity and extreme comparisons used by members of the LDS community.

[wenglund]

I am sorry, but you don't get to arbitrarily privilege homosexuals. They are no more or less deserving of protection from offense than the rest of us. Comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships is offensive. The very suggestion of SSM has long been highly offensive to those of us who value the basic civil right of marriage (as defined as between a man and a woman) and the foundational institution of society and who don't wish to see it bastardized. If we are going to let homosexuals profane the sacred, then we should be allowed to demonstrate that profanation n principle and in a ways they may understand. We aren't equating homosexual sex with bestiality or pedophilia,. Rather, we are drawing reasonable comparisons as comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships, and suggesting that the same emotive reasoning used to bastardize marriage through legalizing SSM is the same reasoning that could be used to bastardize marriage through legalizing other non-traditional marriages. If people can't handle valid arguments by analogy, then they ought to get out of the whole debate on SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Comparisons between non-legalization of SSM and slavery or other black civil rights issues, is offensive in the extreme as well as inane. Yet, it is allowed to persist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I know... I said as much... And I also didn't.

I also posted to California boy suggesting he stop the suggesting that god doesn't think homosexuality is a sin. That's insulting and nonproductive.

However, I am not homosexual and do not feel that California boy is representing a group I belong to.

Kemera is however LDS, as such statements made by him are at risk of being considered a representation of a broader LDS narrative. As such, I am more concerned with the lack of sensitivity and extreme comparisons used by members of the LDS community.

I can appreciate your concern. However, for my part, I think if we LDS are to be sensitive to anything in this debate, it would be the profanation of what we hold sacred, which to me far out-weighs catering to the misunderstandings and hyper-sensitivity of a group who has already way over-played the victim card. To me, this is a time to boldly stand on principles and values and not cave to the oft insipid whims of political correctness. But, I can respect if others see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

Comparisons between non-legalization of SSM and slavery or other black civil rights issues, is offensive in the extreme as well as inane. Yet, it is allowed to persist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree... However at least the example you cite is still a comparison between humans. The dehumanizing impact if comparing or creating an analogy between homosexuals and animals can not be overstated.

[wenglund]

I agree... However at least the example you cite is still a comparison between humans. The dehumanizing impact if comparing or creating an analogy between homosexuals and animals can not be overstated.

But, logically, t isn't dehumanizing to illustrate a human principle by using animal analogies. Even the savior of the world compared himself to a hen gathering her chick, and his followers to sheep and fish. Rather, the way we dehumanize is by behaving in ways that are beneath human dignity--though I am not going to specifically mention certain sexual behaviors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 11, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

I also posted to California boy suggesting he stop the suggesting that god doesn't think homosexuality is a sin. That's insulting and nonproductive.

You do realize that I have never suggested that God doesn't think that homosexuality is a sin. What I did say is that we don't know how God feels about homosexuality within the confinds of marriage. I did not say that God doesn't think homosexuality is a sin. If you think I have, please post what I said. I seem to constantly get misquoted on this issue as you can tell by the lenghty disclaimers I have decided to put in my posts. If you can not find such a post, I would really appreciate an apology.

Since this seems to be something that some members of this board seem to miss constantly, let me state again. I am not pushing for such a thing to happen. I am not justifying homosexuality. I am not trying to get the church to change their position on ssm. I am not asking anyone to accept what I have speculated on. I am only discussing the concept. This is a discussion board. It is not a place that doctrine is decided upon. Are we clear on that? If anyone makes such a claim against me, I am simply going to paste this paragraph as a response. lol. I feel like I am writing a clause to a contract.

Edited November 11, 2012 by california boy

[Kemara]

Where in nz are you based?

I am from Hamilton, but am currently in Queensland, Australia.

[Kemara]

However, for my part, I think if we LDS are to be sensitive to anything in this debate, it would be the profanation of what we hold sacred, which to me far out-weighs catering to the misunderstandings and hyper-sensitivity of a group who has already way over-played the victim card. To me, this is a time to boldly stand on principles and values and not cave to the oft insipid whims of political correctness. But, I can respect if others see it differently.

Well said sir, well said.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Kemara