TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Peteolcott, we are loving our neighbor by advising them not to sin in the manner we are. To let them sin without knowing better would be harmful indeed. =/ Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I agree that these points have been established by some scientific studies, do you dispute that these points have been questioned by other scientific studies? If not, then, as I said, the debate is far from over and the logical extension you made on these debated points is dubious.I don't need any scientific study, I know this first-hand.Take my test and try to decide to swap your most favorite and most distasteful foods, and then see if preferences are a choice. You do want the truth don't you? Edited December 7, 2012 by peteolcott
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Kemara you have done nothing but jump on scott's band wagon against me. My post are clear to there meaning. I support the Church message given on the website....have you yet gone to website to figure out what that message is? So I have two motives now? Antagonising you and jumping on Scott's band wagain, make up your mind. Again, I know what I think the message is, I know what other posters, who have provided an explanation of their views, think the message is. However, you have utterly refused to provide an explanation of what you think the message is. I think all reasonable people would agree that our interpreations of the website could be different, hence my very simple request. Your obfuscation is amusing and very telling.
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Peteolcott, we are loving our neighbor by advising them not to sin in the manner we are. To let them sin without knowing better would be harmful indeed. =/According to this verse you would be doing this incorrectly.http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htmIf this verse is the true will of God, then most Christians have Chrisitianity incorrectly.
Erin15 Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Saying that it is a choice is...I never said that being attracted to the same-sex was a choice, I said that choosing to engage in homosexual activities is a choice.Are you trying to argue that we have no free will?
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 According to this verse you would be doing this incorrectly.http://bible.cc/galatians/5-14.htmIf this verse is the true will of God, then most Christians have Chrisitianity incorrectly.The verse doesn't say I'm doing it incorrectly though. As I said, loving one's neighbor includes advising them against homosexuality, does it not?
Erin15 Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I don't need any scientific study, I know this first-hand.Take my test and try to decide to swap your most favorite and most distasteful foods, and then see if preferences are a choice. You do want the truth don't you?As far as I can tell no one has said preferences were a choice, so I don't know where you are getting that. They may have said that preferences can be altered over time, but that is another subject.We said that actions are a choice. Do you understand the difference between having a preference for junk food and choosing to put junk food in your body?Are you arguing that we cannot control ourselves? Edited December 7, 2012 by Erin15
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 How so?Hmmm... have you ever heard the story of Stonewall Jackson? It actually didn't really happen, yes, but it draws a certain moral conclusion which is useful in other things.Basically, the story goes he ate lemons every day, because he hated them. Eventually he grew to the point where he actually liked eating them, and so he had to switch to another food. (of course, as I mentioned, it's just a story)Moral of the story; you can get to like anything if you want to. It's not easy no, but definately possible. Those who say it isn't just haven't been able to suceed in doing it, I would guess.OK, now actually take this test yourself, right now. Decide to become disgusted by your most favorite food. Did it work?
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) OK, now actually take this test yourself, right now. Decide to become disgusted by your most favorite food. Did it work?Can't test it right now, but that one would be pretty easy for me... I have a strong willpower in that sense... in making things that in one aspect seem good be classified as bad in my mind (technichally I've already done it with soda, which I gave up when I started running, and have never had since). On the other hand, getting something that tastes disgusting to taste good would be a bit more difficult... it'd take some practice. I'm sure I could do it though. =) Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 No one said preferences were a choice. Not one, so I don't know where you are getting that.We said that actions are a choice. Do you understand the difference between having a preference for junk food and choosing to put junk food in your body?Are you arguing that we cannot control ourselves?Homosexual desire is not a choice. Having such a strong desire without the chance of it ever being fullfilled would cease to provide sufficient reason for continued existence.
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Homosexual desire is not a choice. Having such a strong desire without the chance of it ever being fullfilled would cease to provide sufficient reason for continued existence.Except that there are some who have had such a strong desire, have never fulfilled it, and still choose to exist. What does that speak to? Why are they capable of overcoming such a desire?
DavidB Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 So I have two motives now? Antagonising you and jumping on Scott's band wagain, make up your mind. Again, I know what I think the message is, I know what other posters, who have provided an explanation of their views, think the message is. However, you have utterly refused to provide an explanation of what you think the message is. I think all reasonable people would agree that our interpreations of the website could be different, hence my very simple request. Your obfuscation is amusing and very telling.I support the message the Church presents on the website, which I have previously stated is, in my opinion the centralization of what the Church has taught for a long time, as Elders Oaks states what is on the website is no change in doctrine.
Erin15 Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Homosexual desire is not a choice.No one said it was.Having such a strong desire without the chance of it ever being fullfilled would cease to provide sufficient reason for continued existence.We all have to give up things we want in order to do what is right. For some of us it is necessary to give up the thing we want most in order to do what is right.It happens all the time. Some people go through their whole lives without ever having children, some people are never able to get married. Our hearts go out so such people, but their rewards in the eternities will be an hundred fold for placing so much upon the alter in order to do what is right. Edited December 7, 2012 by Erin15
Nathair/|\ Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the opposition to Gay marriage ceases to have any basis what-so-ever. If one takes the meaning of these words precisely, then the only things that are forbidden are things that are to some degree hateful. Gay marriage is not hateful in the slightest degree.Notice the book that these words come from: Galatians (gay latians). I do not think that this is a coincidence.Galatians is etymologically related to Gauls, not gay, and it especially has nothing to do with a meaning of gay that didn't exist even a hundred years ago. 2
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I never said that being attracted to the same-sex was a choice, I said that choosing to engage in homosexual activities is a choice.Are you trying to argue that we have no free will?I don't really know. Whether or not you have free will is unknown to me.I do know that personal preferences are not choices.
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Galatians is etymologically related to Gauls, not gay, and it especially has nothing to do with a meaning of gay that didn't exist even a hundred years ago.Yet for this time, right now, the name phoentically includes the sound: "gay".I do not think that was a coincidence.
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I do know that personal preferences are not choices.But we are not bound to personal preference, if we so choose. Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO
Kemara Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 I don't need any scientific study, I know this first-hand.Take my test and try to decide to swap your most favorite and most distasteful foods, and then see if preferences are a choice. You do want the truth don't you?Wow, and I mean WOW!! That is a remarkable turn around. Initially swinging science like a club and then casting it aside when it doesnt bludgeon the opponents like you thought it would. So in place of science you are now presenting an argument based on nothing more than mumbo jumbo. First off you would need to establish that taste for food is intrinsic, inherent, has a genetic basis and is a fundamental aspect of a persons essential nature for your example to be of any support to your position. Is that what you are claiming? You are claiming nature vs. nuture when it comes to food taste? As a bit of an aside, once upon a time when I was just a young lad I loathed Paua (a type of shell fish). It smelt terrible, looked disgusting and tasted even worse. Somehow I got over the intrinsic, inherent, genetic basis of this fundamental aspect of my essential nature and now love it. Not only do I want the truth I want lots of Paua with it. Do you? 1
Erin15 Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I don't really know. Whether or not you have free will is unknown to me.If we are not free to make choices, then why does God give us rules?If we are not free to make choices, then why does God reward good choices?If we are not free to make choices, then why does God punish bad choices?If we are not free to make choices, then why do we have scriptures and prophets to explain right and wrong to us?If we are not free to make choices, then why does God tell us that we are? Edited December 7, 2012 by Erin15
canard78 Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Is it me, or is there a certain irony that a thread to discuss how we as Mormons can be more supportive and considerate towards gay people has reached the point where homosexual people (who "do not choose" their preference), are being compared to people who prefer junk food and "told to eat lemons for a year" in the hope it will change them. Have you not even read the website?And as for the implied comparison of comparing gay people to a carnivorous Black Widow which 'humans' find disgusting is, again, insensitive.
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Except that there are some who have had such a strong desire, have never fulfilled it, and still choose to exist. What does that speak to? Why are they capable of overcoming such a desire?It makes no sense to me. From my point of view it seems irrational.
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 But we are not bound to personal preference, if we so choose.Yet choosing to not fullfull it would cease to provide sufficient reason for me to continue to exist in this world or the next.
slamarwi Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Where does this eventually lead? Seriously, what is the end game for all of this?
peteolcott Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Is it me, or is there a certain irony that a thread to discuss how we as Mormons can be more supportive and considerate towards gay people has reached the point where homosexual people (who "do not choose" their preference), are being compared to people who prefer junk food and "told to eat lemons for a year" in the hope it will change them. Have you not even read the website?And as for the implied comparison of comparing gay people to a carnivorous Black Widow which 'humans' find disgusting is, again, insensitive.Hateful and unkind words violate God's highest law.
TAO Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Is it me, or is there a certain irony that a thread to discuss how we as Mormons can be more supportive and considerate towards gay people has reached the point where homosexual people (who "do not choose" their preference), are being compared to people who prefer junk food and "told to eat lemons for a year" in the hope it will change them. Have you not even read the website?And as for the implied comparison of comparing gay people to a carnivorous Black Widow which 'humans' find disgusting is, again, insensitive.Canard... uh you didn't interpret the voice in my post very well, tbh. I'm not even angry right now... on the contrary, I'm quite calm and peaceful (watching Fruit's Basket).I know more than most that the struggle takes a lifetime. However, the point is; it is possible, for those who choose it. And that's an important thing to know.In any case, the black widow's canibalism wasn't being compared to gay people. It was a counter-example to the argument that animals doing something make it justified in humans. Unfortunately, I had to pick an extreme example like this to make sure that the point would be made; very few people support canibalism. I could have used something else, but there would have been a great chance of an exception, ruling my counter-argument useless. That's why I picked that specific example; not to hurt somebody's feelings. Edited December 7, 2012 by TAO
Recommended Posts