Dating Website For Mormons With Same-Sex Attraction

[smac97]

Smac,

I'm suggesting that there is a difference between "desire" and "orientation". A difference that I feel ought to be recognized rather than dismissed as overtly similar (e.g. your implication that a heterosexual man "desiring" to cheat on his wife is somehow equivalent to a homosexual man seeking fulfillment through a committed marital relationship with another man).

What is this difference?

And what about fornication? If a young man is "sexually oriented" toward having sex with a young woman, if we call this an "orientation" instead of a "desire," does that make the behavior acceptable?

I share in your belief that God has commanded against fornication and adultery for all -- regardless of sexual orientation.

You are being coy. What about homosexual behavior? Do you believe God has forbidden it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ControlFreak]

smac continually equates wanting to violate covenants with a spouse, devastating at a minimum the spouse and potentially a whole family with a gay person wanting to enter a mutually loving and supportive relationship.

I understand that the church teaches that both are wrong in the eyes of God, but is it not totally obvious why the latter deserves sympathy at being denied such an opportunity and the former doesn't?

"The mind reels"

[smac97]

Why do you use the word "opposition"?

Because we are not in a "live and let live" world. We are in a world where people like me are vilified, ostracized, and more recently even punished for not finding homosexual behavior to be acceptable.

This is a worldview that some people around us are trying to foist on us, and on our children. This is a worldview that is in opposition to the Restored Gospel. I support the Restored Gospel, so I will defend it.

Why not use something like "indifference" or something.

Because God has said this behavior is wrong. Moreover, the data indicate that this behavior is harmful. I am not indifferent to those who struggle with it. I want to help where I can.

Do homosexuals oppose heterosexual behaviors?

Some apparently view heterosexuals with contempt (hence the derogatory term "breeders").

There is not much of a rational argument against heterosexuality. It's the natural way of things.

I think it more likely that they just aren't interested in it. Maybe more people could try being indifferent to the activities than opposed to them?

If there was not such a concerted effort to coerce societal acceptance and endorsement of homosexual behavior, you might have a point. But there is, so you don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[go_utes01]

smac continually equates wanting to violate covenants with a spouse, devastating at a minimum the spouse and potentially a whole family with a gay person wanting to enter a mutually loving and supportive relationship.

I understand that the church teaches that both are wrong in the eyes of God, but is it not totally obvious why the latter deserves sympathy at being denied such an opportunity and the former doesn't?

"The mind reels"

Is violating covenants we have made with Heavenly Father less serious somehow (I understand that both are violative of covenants made with Heavenly Father)?

Edited January 15, 2013 by go_utes01

[smac97]

smac continually equates wanting to violate covenants with a spouse, devastating at a minimum the spouse and potentially a whole family with a gay person wanting to enter a mutually loving and supportive relationship.

I equate homosexual behavior with other forms of sexual sin, such as adultery and fornication, because they are all proscribed in the Restored Gospel.

Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior is not prohibited?

I understand that the church teaches that both are wrong in the eyes of God, but is it not totally obvious why the latter deserves sympathy at being denied such an opportunity and the former doesn't?

First, we aren't talking about same-sex marriage. Markle's website isn't about marriage. It's about sex.

Second, there are people with all sorts of struggles in life, so I don't like the idea of creating special martyrs out of homosexuals. Yes, they have a struggle. But so do others. Some struggle with adultery, or with fornication, or with pornography, or with substance abuse, or with violence, or with mental illness, and on and on and on. We, as a Church, are supposed to show compassion, patience, love and understanding to our brothers and sisters. We don't do any of them any favors by suggesting to them that their sin is special, that it is actually not a sin at all, and that the fault lies with the Church, its doctrines, its leaders, its members for discouraging this behavior.

We all have our faults. But elevating one form of temptation, SSA, over other types of temptation (which can be just as difficult to cope with as SSA) has no value. Zip. Nada. I think people like you only do it because the World has made a pet project of lionizing homosexuality and putting it on equal footing with heterosexuality (note your apparent indignation when I noted that the Restored Gospel privileges heterosexual behavior over homosexual behavior).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2013 by smac97

[rockpond]

Smac,

My suggestion regarding the website potentially being something that is needed was referring to the possible need for gay members of the church to connect with others in the same situation on a social level, not for fornication or adultery. I have never made any suggestions that I approve of adultery and fornication despite your implications that I somehow think they are okay when desired.

You don't know that Brother Markle has started the site as a money-making venture. You also claim that his site is not about marriage but about sex. I don't see anything in the article to suggest such a conclusion. I also didn't say that I admire him.

To answer your other question: No, I certainly would not support a website or any other efforts to facilitate people cheating on their spouses.

There is a difference between a heterosexual married man wanting to cheat on his wife and a homosexual man with an innate orientation that leaves him able to experience a loving, committed relationship exclusively with someone of his same gender. You seem to see equivalency in the plight of those two men: the straight guy who has to confine himself to monogamy and the gay guy who has to confine himself to celibacy (not celibacy in the sense of no sexual relations, but celibacy in the sense of zero romantic or intimate involvement whatsoever).

We are not on the same page in that respect and I don't see a point in continuing to banter about it. I hope that I've answered the questions you've asked of me. If I've missed one and you sincerely would like an answer, please feel free to ask again.

[halconero]

Try finding your future husband on those sites bud!?!

I'm having trouble dating people in Toronto as it is...I'm not sure I could do online! Hah!

[glitterNgold]

Smac,

I wonder if William Law felt the same way as you? (i.e. being vilified, ostracized, and more recently even punished for opposing a non-traditional relationship)

[ControlFreak]

I equate homosexual behavior with other forms of sexual sin, such as adultery and fornication, because they are all proscribed in the Restored Gospel.

Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior is not prohibited?

I specifically said both were prohibited.

First, we aren't talking about same-sex marriage. Markle's website isn't about marriage. It's about sex.

I believe the website specifically stated an intent to find "long-term" and "committed" relationships? Kind of harsh to say that a romantic and emotional relationship between gays can only be about "sex"?

Second, there are people with all sorts of struggles in life, so I don't like the idea of creating special martyrs out of homosexuals. Yes, they have a struggle. But so do others. Some struggle with adultery, or with fornication, or with pornography, or with substance abuse, or with violence, or with mental illness, and on and on and on. We, as a Church, are supposed to show compassion, patience, love and understanding to our brothers and sisters. We don't do any of them any favors by suggesting to them that their sin is special, that it is actually not a sin at all, and that the fault lies with the Church, its doctrines, its leaders, its members for discouraging this behavior.

We all have our faults. But elevating one form of temptation, SSA, over other types of temptation (which can be just as difficult to cope with as SSA) has no value. Zip. Nada. I think people like you only do it because the World has made a pet project of lionizing homosexuality and putting it on equal footing with heterosexuality (note your apparent indignation when I noted that the Restored Gospel privileges heterosexual behavior over homosexual behavior).

I absolutely elevate a gay person's desire to form a long-term, committed relationship with another above a heterosexual man's desire to break his promise to his wife, thereby devastating his wife and family.

Again, I am not stating that either is right from the perspective of sin, but one most definitely is more respectable and deserving of understanding.

Shouldn't we be reaching out to all people who struggle in this life? No one is making martyrs of gays, they are simply the topic of this conversation. We can address others elsewhere.

Is it really wrong to extend sympathy to someone who wants a relationship that does not necessarily harm a single other person and is only prohibited for an unexplained reason by God? I can't imagine life without the companionship of my wife. And before you bring it up, there is absolutely a HUGE difference between someone not being able to find someone and another who has found someone they love, but must then choose between them and God, and is thus forced to live alone even though the opportunity is right in front of them to enjoy a fulfilling emotional companionship. We still ask them to make that sacrifice, but what does it cost us to acknowledge that it is a sacrifice and show some understanding?

At a minimum, it is unneccesarily cruel and harsh to imply that wanting such a relationship is the same as wanting to emotionally abuse your wife and children by cheating on your committed relationship.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm having trouble dating people in Toronto as it is...I'm not sure I could do online! Hah!

Have fun. Be single for a few years. Wait until you're 28-30 before you get serious about marriage.

[go_utes01]

Is it really wrong to extend sympathy to someone who wants a relationship that does not necessarily harm a single other person and is only prohibited for an unexplained reason by God? I can't imagine life without the companionship of my wife. And before you bring it up, there is absolutely a HUGE difference between someone not being able to find someone and another who has found someone they love, but must then choose between them and God, and is thus forced to live alone even though the opportunity is right in front of them to enjoy a fulfilling emotional companionship. We still ask them to make that sacrifice, but what does it cost us to acknowledge that it is a sacrifice and show some understanding?

Straw-man alert. I have not seen anybody in this thread argue that it would wrong to extend sympathy or acknowledge the difficulty of those that experience SSA.

Edited January 15, 2013 by go_utes01

[Senator]

Can I ask a question out of simple ignorance?

Where has the church stated that all forms of same-sex behavior (ie, dating, hand-holding, hugging) is prohibited and moreso, in violation to the law of chastity?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

the website will act both as a tool for dating and as a resource for LGBTQ Mormons looking for acceptance within a church that's still evolving on its stance on homosexuality.

Not that this got missed but the entire ppoint of the site is not really for dating. That is part of it. The website is for "our evolving" view. BTW it is not evolving. They hope to put pressure on us to change our views. I think they are severly misguided. I think Smac has done a fantastic job in defending the faith. That we should not change our views solely because some one desieres or has a different orentation than some one else.

I tell you the next line will be pedophilia and making that socially acceptable. And how that is the new orientation. And we have all misunderstood that. It sounds familiar. Were have I heard it before. Oh yeah the Gay debate.

Note, I am not equating being gay with pedophilia.

I was originally going to do a mock of the article from the OP and use the website adaultfinder. But I got sidetract.

For those that suffer from adaultry syndrom.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Can I ask a question out of simple ignorance?

Where has the church stated that all forms of same-sex behavior (ie, dating, hand-holding, hugging) is prohibited and moreso, in violation to the law of chastity?

I am not aware of any thing that has been said that "holding hands" is worng. But to what end? Were would you draw the line?

[ControlFreak]

Straw-man alert. I have not seen anybody in this thread argue that it would wrong to extend sympathy or acknowledge the difficulty of those that experience SSA.

Nice try.

This thread has been a gold-mine for quotes stating how we should not be understanding of gays because:

1. their temptation is the same as trying to destroy your committed relationship with your family (adultery)

2. if we extend any understanding they will only expect more.

3. they ought to just leave and form their own religion so as to not bother ours

4. asking a gay man to never take advantage of an available loving relationship is the same as asking a heterosexual woman to not take advantage of a relationship that NEVER existed.

5. Gays committing suicide has nothing to do with our lack of acceptance and is just a natural result of their being gay.

Here is a sampling of the quotes, if you need specifics, I'm happy to provide.

Yep. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. The camel's nose in the tent. The boiling frog. The slippery slope. Pick your metaphor.

I have the answer for such folks: Stop kicking against the pricks. Stop believing that you are somehow better than or otherwise exempt from the commandments of God. Stop listening to worldly voices which tell you to disregard the oracles of God. Start listening to the scriptures, modern prophets, and the Holy Spirit. As Elijah once asked the Children of Israel: "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him" (1 Kings 18:21).

Too bad that these advocats don't seem to want to start their own religious offshoot .It's not like it hasn't been done before.

Again, this is utter and complete crap. If a homosexual church member resents being held to the same standard that everyone else is held to, then that person is in error.

Ah, I was wondering when the unfortunately-frequent "Hey, Mormons! Either change your doctrines or I'll kill myself and blame you for it!" trope would be trotted out.

Maybe you never said we shouldn't be sympathetic, but it has definitely been the overall tone of this thread. Conversely, those advocating understanding have not asked that homosexual acts be condoned by the church (even if we personally believe that would be OK), just an acknowledgement of the EXTRA sacrifice they are being asked to make and that Elder Jensen eloquently pointed out.

I specifically called out smac for being particularly callous in comparing a homosexual relationship to cheating on your wife (again, the website was about committed, long-term relationships, not "sex") .

[rockpond]

Can I ask a question out of simple ignorance?

Where has the church stated that all forms of same-sex behavior (ie, dating, hand-holding, hugging) is prohibited and moreso, in violation to the law of chastity?

In Handbook 1, we are given reasons for which disciplinary councils may be required. Among that list of reasons is "homosexual relations". For the Strength of Youth uses the words "homosexual and lesbian behavior" and calls it serious sin. I have yet to find in the Handbooks a definition for homosexual relations or behavior. But given that it is listed in addition to other sins such as fornication, adultery, and heavy petting, it seems to imply something more than those sexual sins.

Honestly, I think that it is left to Bishops to decide. There may be bishops who feel hand holding and dating between two people of the same gender is okay. But I'm more inclined to believe that most bishops would see dating between those of the same gender as a sin. I tend to think that many bishops would look to the standards applied at BYU and on church property.

I don't think that the Law of Chastity makes specific reference to homosexuality other than to say that sexual relations must be within the bonds of marriage.

[Senator]

I am not aware of any thing that has been said that "holding hands" is worng. But to what end? Were would you draw the line?

Smac has stated that all homosexual behavior is prohibited (against the commands of God). I'm looking for a reference.

[go_utes01]

Nice try.

This thread has been a gold-mine for quotes stating how we should not be understanding of gays because:

1. their temptation is the same as trying to destroy your committed relationship with your family (adultery)

2. if we extend any understanding they will only expect more.

3. they ought to just leave and form their own religion so as to not bother ours

4. asking a gay man to never take advantage of an available loving relationship is the same as asking a heterosexual woman to not take advantage of a relationship that NEVER existed.

5. Gays committing suicide has nothing to do with our lack of acceptance and is just a natural result of their being gay.

Here is a sampling of the quotes, if you need specifics, I'm happy to provide.

Maybe you never said we shouldn't be sympathetic, but it has definitely been the overall tone of this thread. Conversely, those advocating understanding have not asked that homosexual acts be condoned by the church (even if we personally believe that would be OK), just an acknowledgement of the EXTRA sacrifice they are being asked to make and that Elder Jensen eloquently pointed out.

I specifically called out smac for being particularly callous in comparing a homosexual relationship to cheating on your wife (again, the website was about committed, long-term relationships, not "sex") .

Still don't see anybody saying we should not have sympathy or acknowledge the difficulties of those experiencing SSA. You may not agree with what others have stated or the manner of their argumentation, but nobody has said we should not have sympathy or recognize the difficulty of SSA. Equating other difficult situations - even when you do not believe they are remotely equal - does not equal the claim that people are claiming that we should not have sympathy for others. Strawman claim remains true.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

5. Gays committing suicide has nothing to do with our lack of acceptance and is just a natural result of their being gay.

Here is a sampling of the quotes, if you need specifics, I'm happy to provide.

I am sorry but Smac provided ample evidence that accepting gays does not seem to affect the suicide rates.

Maybe you never said we shouldn't be sympathetic, but it has definitely been the overall tone of this thread. Conversely, those advocating understanding have not asked that homosexual acts be condoned by the church (even if we personally believe that would be OK), just an acknowledgement of the EXTRA sacrifice they are being asked to make and that Elder Jensen eloquently pointed out.

I specifically called out smac for being particularly callous in comparing a homosexual relationship to cheating on your wife (again, the website was about committed, long-term relationships, not "sex") .

You seem to not know what a sin is. That seems to be the issue.

And if we dont accept something then we are automattically not sympathetic .Those to terms are not the same.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Smac has stated that all homosexual behavior is prohibited (against the commands of God). I'm looking for a reference.

Yeah, that is what I said. I am not sure there is an offical reference.

[Senator]

Yeah, that is what I said. I am not sure there is an offical reference.

Don't you think there aught to be?

[ControlFreak]

Still don't see anybody saying we should not have sympathy or acknowledge the difficulties of those experiencing SSA. You may not agree with what others have stated or the manner of their argumentation, but nobody has said we should not have sympathy or recognize the difficulty of SSA. Equating other difficult situations - even when you do not believe they are remotely equal - does not equal the claim that people are claiming that we should not have sympathy for others. Strawman claim remains true.

Ok. You win. Asking others to go start their own religion and leave yours alone or telling them their desires are on the same level as a homewrecker really IS showing sympathy. My bad.

[smac97]

Nice try.

This thread has been a gold-mine for quotes stating how we should not be understanding of gays because:

1. their temptation is the same as trying to destroy your committed relationship with your family (adultery)

They are "the same" only insofar as both adultery and homosexual behavior are prohibited. Of course, I have made that amply clear, and you know I have made that amply clear.

Meanwhile, you are ignoring my comparison of homosexual behavior with fornication. Why is that? Both are prohibited behaviors in the Restored Gospel, but only one allows folks like you to argue for some sort of special exemption from the Law of Chastity for homosexual members.

2. if we extend any understanding they will only expect more.

Utter crap. Nobody has suggested that we not try to be understanding, compassionate, etc. towards people with SSA.

3. they ought to just leave and form their own religion so as to not bother ours

Utter crap. Nobody has said that. And for the record, I disagree with that sentiment. My position is that church members with SSA should stay with the Church and be asked to obey the commandments just like the rest of us.

4. asking a gay man to never take advantage of an available loving relationship is the same as asking a heterosexual woman to not take advantage of a relationship that NEVER existed.

You are familiar with the concept of "analogy," right? The comparison of two otherwise dissimilar things that nevertheless share certain attributes?

5. Gays committing suicide has nothing to do with our lack of acceptance and is just a natural result of their being gay.

There is data to support the concept of a correlation, including data from areas where homosexual behavior has long been accepted in society. I presented some of that data, and your response has been ... to ignore it.

Meanwhile, you have suggested that there is a correlation between "our lack of acceptance" and gay suicides, but your evidence for that is ... nothing.

Maybe you never said we shouldn't be sympathetic,

You are bearing false witness. Not only have I not said that we shouldn't be sympathetic, I have expressly stated that we should be compassionate and understanding.

but it has definitely been the overall tone of this thread.

Utter crap.

Conversely, those advocating understanding have not asked that homosexual acts be condoned by the church (even if we personally believe that would be OK), just an acknowledgement of the EXTRA sacrifice they are being asked to make and that Elder Jensen eloquently pointed out.

I've addressed this before.

I specifically called out smac for being particularly callous in comparing a homosexual relationship to cheating on your wife (again, the website was about committed, long-term relationships, not "sex") .

I have also compared homosexual behavior to fornication. And pornography. And pedophilia. And rape. And incest. I am not saying these are all equal in terms of severity. I am instead saying that they are all prohibited in the Restored Gospel.

Do you dispute this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Ok. You win. Asking others to go start their own religion and leave yours alone or telling them their desires are on the same level as a homewrecker really IS showing sympathy. My bad.

Who has suggested that homosexual members leave the church and "start their own religion?" Please provide a link to this post. I reject such a suggestion.

And you are bearing false witness when you say that we have been saying that homosexual "desires are on the same level as a homewrecker." The Church's position is that homosexual behavior is prohibited. As is adultery. As is fornication. And rape. And incest. And pedophilia. These are all different types and degrees of sexual sin, but they are all very serious. And they are all sin.

-Smac

[KevinG]

One problem is that while few of us have trouble acknowledging we are sinners most of us want our particular favorite weaknesses to be lumped in with the coffee drinkers and fibbers not the fornicators and murderers.