Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[Stone holm]

I haven't skirted it at all. There is much that is morally wrong by societies standard that the govt does not have "social writ" to enforce or adjudicate.

I am simply in think that the social writ currently administered via the courts is a little broad.

I don't think he is objecting to government having a monopoly on coercion, he is objecting to the quantity and scope of government regulation. The idea is that individuals should have considerable autonomy where consensual dealings are concerned. The problem is that it is difficult to reach agreement on what dealings should be left alone. My personal test is if regulating something smells and sounds like somebody being a busybody into someone's private life, then the government should keep its nose out. Religion of course is expected to stick its nose in your private life because its purpose is to make us better according to God's standards but government should not try and act like a spokesperson for God.

[gree0232]

Well obviously you find these arguments believable, but there is no denying that the majority of Americans do not. The Supreme court will eventually rule on this issue and unfortunately for you, justices tend to understand the concept of consenting adults. They also tend to put more trust in The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States than antidotal stories. So guess what is going to be the final outcome on this issue?

I am confused by this statement.

You do realize that gay marriage is legal in Spain and China is considering it right?

You do realize that I am referring to the same Spain that had the Inquisition? That tolerated homosexuality, and then repealed it? The same China that in its ancient texts has explicit displays and mention of homosexuality eventually sought to remove that aspect of its culture?

Do you know why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_China

That would be the current legal climate in China.

"China

Ancient chinese culture and literature celebrated same-sex relationships, and even relationships considered taboo in most of the world today. However, with his rise to power, Mao sought to destroy all of what he considered to be deviant Western vice. With the rise of the Communist Party, homosexuality became a symbol of Western vice and decadence. Though not officially banned, homosexual activity was forced underground. Homosexuals in China were often forced into heterosexual marriages, harrassed by police, imprisoned, and occassionally disappeared. Mainstream Chinese society became intolerant of any sexuality that deviated from the traditional heterosexual view. In the 1960s to 1970s, during the Cultural Revolution, violence against sexual minorities escalated. Homosexuals were publicly humiliated, and often executed. Art and literature that referred to homosexuality, cross-dressing, or any untraditional sexual activity was destroyed en masse.

Today homosexuals are still harassed by police, though it is believed that imprisonment is rare. There are now a handful of gay bars where homosexuals can publicly congregate and several websites, though both are still occasionally shut down by police. There are no homosexual organizations and discrimination and gay bashing is ignored by the government."

That would be its history.

Now the larger question remains - why would Mao seize upon homosexuality in his rise to power in a society that has a long history of acceptance of homosexuality?

BTW - even Buddhism condemns homosexuality. Why is that?

http://www.evangelical.us/homosexuality/buddhism.html

Why is that?

[gree0232]

I haven't skirted it at all. There is much that is morally wrong by societies standard that the govt does not have "social writ" to enforce or adjudicate.

I am simply in think that the social writ currently administered via the courts is a little broad.

Its called the US Constitution. The alternative is free to see in the world today, the absence of government - in places like Afghanistan and Somalia. Government may not be perfect, but there is a reason that the Bible exhorts us to support the legitimate governments of the land. The alternative is ... alarming.

The question with sexuality is where the legitimate aspect of governance raises its role. In sanctioning marriage, the government acknoweldges the societal level benefits of heterosxual marriage. With homosexual marriage? The effect is, at best, debatable at this point. With polygamy, the damaging effects clearly out weight any positives. And the further on down the road of sexual depravity you get, the more you see the need to government agency in questions of value.

In questions of sex, that role is still there, but the line issues are always going to have some people on both sides of the question in great preportion. I doubt the percentages of those who agree that sex with children (like NAMBLA) is a good thing is even close what it is with homosexuality.

Government is still the proper agency for adjudication, it does not become an object of oppression simply because the societal level position upon whose consent it operates, is on the other side of your opinion.

We exist in a society where you are free to generate the consensus needed to change opinions and legal statute ... a fact the homosexual community if clearly availing themselves of.

If not through government, then how?

[Stone holm]

So were many of the Muslims whose say their men killed in the middle of a war in societies that, like the era of the early church, no legal rights to women who are left potentially destitute with children to raise unless someone steps in to 'marry' them. That is one of the reasons the early church accepted polygamy, and there are those among us all who COULD negotiate this temptable minefield with appropriate decorum and circumspection.

Yet, both the early church and current Islamic practices, nevertheless have to deal with the reality of polygamy and human frailty. Thee early church had members who abused the polygamous practices for sexually rapacious ends - as happens right now in Islamic societies.

The main difference is that the circumstances that necessitated polygamy ended and the church, through divine guidance, changed the practice. Islam did not, and a thousand years of exploitation stand in stark warning of the wise counsel the repeal of polygamy was for our church and society. The fLDS church is the future we would have inherited should President Woodruff not repealed the practice.

I think that you place too much emphasis on property rights as being the prime motivator for the establishment of the practice. I agree, however, that The Lord's purpose had been fulfilled. I suspect if WW had opted not to suspend the practice we would have been hearing general conference primarily in Spanish today.

[gree0232]

Well obviously you find these arguments believable, but there is no denying that the majority of Americans do not. The Supreme court will eventually rule on this issue and unfortunately for you, justices tend to understand the concept of consenting adults. They also tend to put more trust in The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States than antidotal stories. So guess what is going to be the final outcome on this issue?

I am confused by this statement.

You do realize that gay marriage is legal in Spain and China is considering it right?

Finally, you do realize you are proving my point.

You just skipped out of answering the majority of a post and massive portions of the points made before introducing a canard about Spain and China.

Tell me, if the Regreus study has been found by independent investigation to be valid ... exactly what study are the 'professionals' basing their opinion on? It would not be scientific would it ... as is the case highlighted where opinions are stated like, "Two loving parents are better than just one!", which may be true ... but simply stating a system of belief is not science ... nor is it good psychology.

BTW - I have a gay aunt who raised two children with her partner - both children struggled with drug and other issues upon reaching adulthood. Tat is clearly not all, but when you add in testimonies like Weller's and Lopez's ... there just might be something to it.

So before we dive in with logical fallacy like, "Well, most people are not convinced," just bear in mind it was a relatively small minority of person's who stood up to Joe McCarthy as well.

The states that have made it legal are indeed a testing ground ... but we should also be mindful of France, which legalized civil unions ... which were then used a lesser form of commitment by ... promiscuous french men and women who wanted the money of rewarding marriage while engaging in a largely single lifestyle.

Great for a society, no?

Of course, you don't find any of that convincing? Therefore what?

[MormonMason]

You do realize that I am referring to the same Spain that had the Inquisition? That tolerated homosexuality, and then repealed it? The same China that in its ancient texts has explicit displays and mention of homosexuality eventually sought to remove that aspect of its culture?

Do you know why?

https://en.wikipedia...unions_in_China

That would be the current legal climate in China.

"China

Ancient chinese culture and literature celebrated same-sex relationships, and even relationships considered taboo in most of the world today. However, with his rise to power, Mao sought to destroy all of what he considered to be deviant Western vice. With the rise of the Communist Party, homosexuality became a symbol of Western vice and decadence. Though not officially banned, homosexual activity was forced underground. Homosexuals in China were often forced into heterosexual marriages, harrassed by police, imprisoned, and occassionally disappeared. Mainstream Chinese society became intolerant of any sexuality that deviated from the traditional heterosexual view. In the 1960s to 1970s, during the Cultural Revolution, violence against sexual minorities escalated. Homosexuals were publicly humiliated, and often executed. Art and literature that referred to homosexuality, cross-dressing, or any untraditional sexual activity was destroyed en masse.

Today homosexuals are still harassed by police, though it is believed that imprisonment is rare. There are now a handful of gay bars where homosexuals can publicly congregate and several websites, though both are still occasionally shut down by police. There are no homosexual organizations and discrimination and gay bashing is ignored by the government."

That would be its history.

Now the larger question remains - why would Mao seize upon homosexuality in his rise to power in a society that has a long history of acceptance of homosexuality?

BTW - even Buddhism condemns homosexuality. Why is that?

http://www.evangelic...y/buddhism.html

Why is that?

Be careful not to trust anything on that Wikipedia article. I did some research and found that the persons who authored that and a related article quoted from books that lied about Ancient Rome, the Theodosian Code, and Egyptian thought as well as other cultures, regarding homosexuality. The only thing I have not checked in detail was the Chinese cultural claims of the practice. My advice to you is to source-check everything from every secondary source and every original source cited by the secondary sources before referencing any Wikipedia articles dealing with that subject. Those Roman Emperors who did what they did were taken out and killed by the Senate, and the mother who taught such immorality was also taken out and ripped apart by the people of the neighborhood for teaching immorality to those Emperors. What they did was so horrifying that many tried to forget those Emperors. And, the so-called Theodosian Code was not a new set of Roman Laws but the codification in one place of all Roman Laws that previously existed for easy reference. In Egyptian thought, sodomy (or, as they put it, "copulated with a man") rendered a pharaoh unfit for the throne as well other men as unfit for the afterlife. The Declaration of Innocence (called by older publications "Negative Confession") contained specific words that: "I have not copulated with a man." In fact, one of the reasons for why Set was seen as so wicked in his evil aspect was because he tried to sodomize Horus the Younger to make him unfit for the throne. The attempt alone, with the resulting semen on Horus' hand, was so horrifying to Isis that she hacked off Horus' hand and magically grew him another one. No washing in the Nile was good enough.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[gree0232]

Be careful not to trust anything on that Wikipedia article. I did some research and found that the persons who authored that and a related article quoted from books that lied about Ancient Rome, the Theodosian Code, and Egyptian thought as well as other cultures, regarding homosexuality. The only thing I have not checked in detail was the Chinese cultural claims of the practice. My advice to you is to source-check everything from every secondary source and every original source cited by the secondary sources before referencing any Wikipedia articles dealing with that subject. Those Roman Emperors who did what they did were taken out and killed by the Senate, and the mother who taught such immorality was also taken out and ripped apart by the people of the neighborhood for teaching immorality to those Emperors. What they did was so horrifying that many tried to forget those Emperors. And, the so-called Theodosian Code was not a new set of Roman Laws but the codification in one place of all Roman Laws that previously existed for easy reference. In Egyptian thought, sodomy (or, as they put it, "copulated with a man") rendered a pharaoh unfit for the throne as well other men as unfit for the afterlife. The Declaration of Innocence (called by older publications "Negative Confession") contained specific words that: "I have not copulated with a man." In fact, one of the reasons for why Set was seen as so wicked in his evil aspect was because he tried to sodomize Horus the Younger to make him unfit for the throne. The attempt alone, with the resulting semen on Horus' hand, was so horrifying to Isis that she hacked off Horus' hand and magically grew him another one. No washing in the Nile was good enough.

The Wikipedia sources are accurate. They are simply the easiest source to use that explains the generalities of the issue in an easy manner.

I encountered exactly what is in the Wikipedia sources while studied ancient Chinese literature (and reading Moa's works as a historian for the opposite) and, with Buddhism, by travelling through Asia and intereacting with monks. Neither is entirely appropriate as a citation on an internet discussion forum ;-)

The larger point is that of societies in general as they struggle with issues of sexuality - the main point being that we are not the first, and the rejection of homosexuality is not the result of Christian indoctrination, it is a concept that is prevasive in most major religions ... and the question should be asked how all these societies, largely independant of one another, arrived at the point of belief that the cost of homosexuality was was decidedly negative in the cost benefits analysis?

Tell me, if your freind were Lopez above in the first thirty years of his life where he struggled with homosexuality, would you be a good friend who simply agreed with him and told him his life and struggles were normal? Or would you be the good friend who stood up to him when he was wrong? And when events changed his sexual status and he became homosexual? Who then was the honorable friend? The kind soul? The one to be trusted?

Its hard to say, "I am sorry, but I disagree with you - even though you clearly feel very strongly about this." Sometimes, its the right thing to do.

[Bikeemikey]

If not through government, then how?

The place all sacred covenants should be administered... Religions!!

Also an appeal the US constitution is only relaxant to one country out of the many hundreds in the world.

Many countries with out the US constitution have resolved this issue and moved on... I don't think the constitution is why the US has been a late comer to this particular topic of religious and political frustration.

[Stone holm]

The place all sacred covenants should be administered... Religions!!

Also an appeal the US constitution is only relaxant to one country out of the many hundreds in the world.

Many countries with out the US constitution have resolved this issue and moved on... I don't think the constitution is why the US has been a late comer to this particular topic of religious and political frustration.

So why do you think it is a late comer to this particular cultural battlefield?

[jwhitlock]

I never claimed that this movement for equality started big. In fact, you are correct. When gays finally said, "we have had enough and we are citizens of this country too. We deserve equal treatment" the majority of Americans agreed. Those that agree grow every year. When brought out in the light of day, the arguments against gay marriage just don't stand up do they.

Horse apples. There was never a "majority of Americans" that agreed with the demands of SSM activists from the beginning. Once SSM activists realized that many Americans had been conditioned to uncritically accept media sound binds, they began using the media to drum accusations of "discrimination" against those who disagreed with their agenda. Most Americans that "agree" that gays are being "discriminated against" not only typically aren't aware of the arguments against SSM, they really haven't thought all that deeply about the subject. Your only response seems to be "the majority of Americans agree with us, so your arguments against SSM don't stand up". That's really not any kind of real defense of your position, though I'm sure those who uncritically accept your position wouldn't find anything wrong with it.

What? Saying that people have been suckered in by the media is not demonizing? It was you that put forth the idea that gays have the same right to marry as straights. If you don't understand why gays want the right to marry, then tell me, what should I think??? Why is this issue before the Supreme Court if gays already have the equal right to marry?

This makes absolutely no sense. You questioned my intelligence without responding to the points I brought up; in return I noted that your defense appears to consist mostly of demonizing those who disagree with you, and now you post this incoherent response.

CFR where you got that statistic. I do know that some gays marry opposite gender. I also know that the church used to counsel gay members to marry, promising that these gay "tendencies" would diminish. I also know that so many of those marriages end in divorce that the church now counsels that marriage is not therapy. The churches current position is celibacy for gay members. Wonder why.

It's surprising to me that you're not familiar with the particular fact that there are more gays in mixed gender marriages, than there are in same sex marriages - especially since I've brought that up before on other threads that you've been involved in. It appears that there are certain uncomfortable facts detrimental to your claim that gays do not have the same rights as others (a claim that is ludicrous), that you simply choose to ignore. I would suggest you study up on the issue a bit more.

So let me get this straight. Gay right supporters are a very narrow small group. Just what did they pressure these corporations with? Because the stated reason that these corporations give is that they do not support discrimination. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand? Most Americans and most American corporations do not support discriminating against a small minority. It is not pressure from gay groups that cause them to have this belief. Gay groups only brought this practice of discrimination to their attention. Not discriminating is something that most Americans believe as one of our core values. It is unfortunate that you do not share that core value.

SSM supporters such as you routinely throw accusations of discrimination around, hoping that they'll stick somewhere. It is apparent that there has been some success within certain corporations where there are executives either sympathetic to gay agendas, or who want to avoid threatened lawsuits that will bring bad publicity (and reduced profits). Your claim that most Americans and corporations do not support discriminating [sic] against a small minority is simply hogwash. Discrimination occurs all the time on a variety of levels within corporations and in the decisions most people make in their daily lives. It's patently dishonest to use accusations of discrimination the way you have done here; disagreement with gay agendas is not, by definition, illegal discrimination, though it's obvious you'd like to have it redefined as such.

My core values include not letting narrow special interest groups further their agendas at the expense of my rights to worship as I please and to associate with whoever I choose, without coercion When you make accusations of discrimination, you are really only seeking to force people to accept gay agendas which demand special privileges and rights that overrule the rights of others..

Falling back on your "most Americans don't think" statement tells me more about you than the American public. In order to make this argument, you have to include a lot of prominent and intelligent people. You have to admit, it is odd that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. Or could it be that they have thought about this issue and have concluded for themselves that they truly believe in equality for all Americans even if you are gay. Rationalize all you want, but this will only end when gay marriage is legal across the United States. Fortunately, people like you who have no problem denying gays the right to marry are quickly dwindling.

Since I see quite a few educated Americans doing pretty stupid things, I don't think your claim here has much merit. All people, including educated ones, make decisions about what they support based on information sources they choose to accept as authoritative. And a disturbing number of "educated" people seem to choose American media sources as somehow being authoritative on any subject they want to broadcast or print, without thinking too critically about it. That's true across the political, social, and educational spectrum.

One of the truly stupid sound bites they accept out of the media is that gays don't have the right to marry. Gays actually do have the right to marry, just like anyone else. A minority of gays have simply decided they want a special privilege to redefine that right to suit their demands. They have been successful throwing media sound bites out about "discrimination" and "equality" and "rights" to the point that most Americans that rely on the media as authoritative sources of information have swallowed those demands hook, line, and sinker - without thinking all too deeply about the negative impacts of what they're "supporting".

You're simply following that tried and true methodology here. However, since I've looked at a broader variety of sources and considered some of the more problematic elements of your agenda, I'm simply not buying it.

[jwhitlock]

You can download the full text of all documents.

I suggest you do that and review it in detail.

Unfortunately, this is getting way to convoluted to follow. I tried digging around, and the way they've recorded the legislation makes it difficult to determine exactly what has been replaced. However, I'll point out the following observations in order to get back to addressing the claim that the church is anti-gay.

Again, as far as I can tell, there were some potentially troubling aspects of the legislation, especially concerning young boys, that could have been problematic in the church's view.

We don't know who initiated the campaign to have members of the church actively work against the legislation.

We don't know what the actual stated position or reason the church (or someone in the church) had for initiating a campaign.

From your comments, we know that many stakes chose not to participate in the campaign.

Unless we can get those questions answered, the existence of a campaign that we can't get any real details on is hardly support for terming the church as anti-gay. Also, the fact that many stakes chose not to participate in the campaign would be evidence that the opposite is true, and that NO systematic or institutional anti-gay agenda was in place.

PS: edited last sentence to reflect what I really meant.

Edited May 13, 2013 by jwhitlock

[Stone holm]

Have never understood how letting gays marry infringes on our rights to worship as we see fit, or to associate with whoever we want. It has always seemed to me if we want the right to worship as we see fit and associate with who we want then we have to ardently defend the rights of everyone to do the same. But if we start interfering with others rights to worship as they see fit and form associations. As they see fit we are in effect putting our own rights in jeopardy. It's kind of called the golden rule of political rights.

[Stone holm]

Evidently it's time for a CFR on your Ensign article. Please provide.

Wow was just reading the Journal of Discourses vol 2, didn't realise that BY not only referenced the curse of Cain regarding the Priesthood, but also argued that it made slavery also justified. Really wonder now what Elder Morrison meant by "malignant" .

[california boy]

Can you tell me why the community itself, as we are arguing anecdotal, has coined the term hasbian for former gay women ... whose growing body of evidence seems to indicate has real world experience to garner?

Perhaps treating sexuality as legally immutable, and thus subject to discrimination rather than judgement, is not the correct path?

Quite frankly, I have never heard of the term hasbian. You seem to think that just because someone is gay, they are part of this monolithic body that all thinks exactly alike. It is not. I could care less if someone who is gay decides to marry the opposite sex. It is their choice and none of my business. I don't feel the need to control other peoples lives to confirm with my own.

You are trying desperately to make some kind of case tht homosexuality is a choice. You can believe whatever you want. Perhaps you think that you decided one day to be straight. And that if you wanted to, you could change all of your sexual orientation from women one day to men if you choose to. I guess that is how it works in your world. But, most Americans and the medical profession do not think that is how sexuality works. Even the church has completely changed their position on this issue. But hey if you feel the inspired leaders of the church were wrong in their understanding on this issue, feel free.

[gree0232]

Quite frankly, I have never heard of the term hasbian. You seem to think that just because someone is gay, they are part of this monolithic body that all thinks exactly alike. It is not. I could care less if someone who is gay decides to marry the opposite sex. It is their choice and none of my business. I don't feel the need to control other peoples lives to confirm with my own.

You are trying desperately to make some kind of case tht homosexuality is a choice. You can believe whatever you want. Perhaps you think that you decided one day to be straight. And that if you wanted to, you could change all of your sexual orientation from women one day to men if you choose to. I guess that is how it works in your world. But, most Americans and the medical profession do not think that is how sexuality works. Even the church has completely changed their position on this issue. But hey if you feel the inspired leaders of the church were wrong in their understanding on this issue, feel free.

You are doing what I see all to often - you are getting personal because someone disagrees and makes a strong case.

All sex is a choice.

So is religion. That doesn't mean that we have a right to tell people what faith or sexual choice they should follow. However, we do have the right to make the case that not all religions are equal - and indeed, when they go off the tracks so to speak, the government can disband them ... and indeed set policies that help people make choices to avoid the more destructive religions/cults out there.

However, in the reverse of what your 'claims of desperation' - how exactly is homosexuality NOT a choice? Human genome is mapped ... no gay gene, studies conducted that find correlations, fall apart with other random groups, and there is the simple fact that if it were genetic - it would be recessive and eventually breed itself out ... not too mention that when gay parents (lesbian mother and gay father) had children, only having the recessive gene, their off spring are not always gay ... but they should be if its not subject to choice.

Then there are those ex-gays ... former lesbians ... deliberately avoiding the term hasbian (while simultaneously and fallaciously claiming expertise enough to cliam desperation in someone else's argument?)

So tell me, as your arguement rests upon solid foundation and is so utterly convincing ... why exactly is homosexuality NOT a choice? But all other aspects of sexuality ARE? Why is adultery a choice rather than a genetic condition that should be tolerated? Pedophilia? Etc.?

Please make that rock solid case - or continue to use the techniques of McCarthy and simple dismiss everything as desperate.

As I said in the beginning, emotionalism and demonization are easy things to rally around, and McCarthy too realized some short term results in terms of politics. Long Term?

Well, the hasbians you do not wish to acknowledge and wish to keep in the shadows will not remain there forever brother.

[california boy]

You do realize that I am referring to the same Spain that had the Inquisition? That tolerated homosexuality, and then repealed it? The same China that in its ancient texts has explicit displays and mention of homosexuality eventually sought to remove that aspect of its culture?

Do you know why?

https://en.wikipedia...unions_in_China

That would be the current legal climate in China.

"China

Ancient chinese culture and literature celebrated same-sex relationships, and even relationships considered taboo in most of the world today. However, with his rise to power, Mao sought to destroy all of what he considered to be deviant Western vice. With the rise of the Communist Party, homosexuality became a symbol of Western vice and decadence. Though not officially banned, homosexual activity was forced underground. Homosexuals in China were often forced into heterosexual marriages, harrassed by police, imprisoned, and occassionally disappeared. Mainstream Chinese society became intolerant of any sexuality that deviated from the traditional heterosexual view. In the 1960s to 1970s, during the Cultural Revolution, violence against sexual minorities escalated. Homosexuals were publicly humiliated, and often executed. Art and literature that referred to homosexuality, cross-dressing, or any untraditional sexual activity was destroyed en masse.

Today homosexuals are still harassed by police, though it is believed that imprisonment is rare. There are now a handful of gay bars where homosexuals can publicly congregate and several websites, though both are still occasionally shut down by police. There are no homosexual organizations and discrimination and gay bashing is ignored by the government."

That would be its history.

Now the larger question remains - why would Mao seize upon homosexuality in his rise to power in a society that has a long history of acceptance of homosexuality?

BTW - even Buddhism condemns homosexuality. Why is that?

http://www.evangelic...y/buddhism.html

Why is that?

I assume by this post that you are making a case that homosexuality is so inherinet that people are willing to go to prison and in some cases die because of this issue. I don't think that many would disagree with you assertion. It is, after all, a fact that many homosexuals have suffered greatly under opressive governments. I think it is yet another reason why Americans are supporting gay marriage. They also do not view our government as being opressive. They believe in treating all of it's citizens with respect and giving them legal protection. Good post.

So let's see what your point is here. Extremely opressive governments try and do all they can to persecute homosexuals. When governments

Your article that you posted answered your own question

Mao sought to destroy all of what he considered to be deviant Western vice. With the rise of the Communist Party, homosexuality became a symbol of Western vice and decadence.

Sending gays to prison and sometimes executing them was ok in Mao's mind. I personally find his attitudes abhorent.

Those attitudes fortunately are changing.

Will China Legalize Gay Marriage Before the United States?

China decriminalized homosexuality in 1997, even before the U.S. removed all anti-sodomy laws in certain states. But today, there are no formal laws to prevent discrimination against LGBT Chinese, especially in the workplace. Since China’s ministry removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 2001, government policy and public opinion has also gradually shifted. Public health ministries have been targeting gay bars with public awareness campaigns advocating safe-sex and HIV-testing. But generally, LGBT Chinese now fall into an uncomfortably grey area: no longer directly harassed, but also ignored.

[gree0232]

I assume by this post that you are making a case that homosexuality is so inherinet that people are willing to go to prison and in some cases die because of this issue. I don't think that many would disagree with you assertion. It is, after all, a fact that many homosexuals have suffered greatly under opressive governments. I think it is yet another reason why Americans are supporting gay marriage. They also do not view our government as being opressive. They believe in treating all of it's citizens with respect and giving them legal protection. Good post.

So let's see what your point is here. Extremely opressive governments try and do all they can to persecute homosexuals. When governments

Your article that you posted answered your own question

Sending gays to prison and sometimes executing them was ok in Mao's mind. I personally find his attitudes abhorent.

Those attitudes fortunately are changing.

Will China Legalize Gay Marriage Before the United States?

I see you did not read what I presented from China. Moa, the father of the communist revolution, demonized homosexuality ... guess what party remains in power in China? And if referrences to capitalism touch off sensitivities ... what do you think actually bringing up the issue of homosexuality will do inside party channels?

One piece of fluff in the news does not change the hard realities of China ... nor does it ask, much less answer, WHY Moa chose to demonize homosexuality as part of the revolution. Indeed, you seem wholly interested and are indeed avoiding that portion of the conversation.

Which goes back to that point - things we push into the shadows do not remain in the shadows forever.

There is a reason that every major religion on earth took issue with homosexuality. There is reason that societies who have tolerated have reversed course with the passage of time.

Simply because it has been framed as a civil rights issue rather than question of sexuality does not mean the implications of a decidedly sexual activity go away or suddenly have no consequences.

I will remind you what has been said by former gay men:

"I tried imitating others when they said they were born gay, I would say "me too"! It seemed an easy way to get people to accept us. If we were born gay that took away any personal responsibility for our behavior and made people feel sorry for us. All along though, we knew it was a convenient lie.

I love and respect myself today, but I hate the things that I used to do. Homosexual sexuality is perverse and unhealthy, both physically and emotionally. We put on such a respectable image, but inside we were miserable and ashamed. Like many young gays, I tried to commit suicide because I didn't think there was a way out.

Today I am living proof that homosexuals can and do change. I was as deep in the lifestyle as anyone. I spent nine years with my piano teacher and even thought about getting "married." I was 100% gay, now I am 100% recovered from that sick and twisted life. They call it "gay", but I wasn't gay at all, I was miserable. I can't think of a more miserable way of life.

Some people believe that compassion for homosexuals means approving of their lifestyle,It is especially painful to watch the radical gays manipulate their own parents and relatives into endorsing the gay political agenda, but I thank God that others still have the guts to insist that it's wrong, otherwise I might still be trapped. Every time I hear someone talk approvingly of homosexuality, or see them go along with the idea of "gay rights" it breaks my heart, because I know it's like slamming the escape door on so many. "

http://www.newswithv...psychology2.htm

Shall we simply ignore testimonies like this so we can claim that homosexuality is immutable and beyond choice? Why?

And a better question ... why is the homosexual community burying things like this? Screaming that they are discrimination? What is the agenda?

Edited May 13, 2013 by gree0232

[california boy]

Shall we simply ignore testimonies like this so we can claim that homosexuality is immutable and beyond choice? Why?

And a better question ... why is the homosexual community burying things like this? Screaming that they are discrimination? What is the agenda?

The answer is yes. Antidotal evidence never decides any issue. It has no credibility. It only is a belief of individuals. Does someone's testimony of leaving the Mormon church and breaking free of a cult say anything about Mormonism? Should we dismiss the beliefs of millions of Mormons because I can dig up quotes of people who have "found the truth and left Mormonism" Should we start passing laws preventing Mormons from worshiping because I can find people who have left the church? Your approach is nonsense.

[gree0232]

The answer is yes. Antidotal evidence never decides any issue. It has no credibility. It only is a belief of individuals. Does someone's testimony of leaving the Mormon church and breaking free of a cult say anything about Mormonism? Should we dismiss the beliefs of millions of Mormons because I can dig up quotes of people who have "found the truth and left Mormonism" Should we start passing laws preventing Mormons from worshiping because I can find people who have left the church? Your approach is nonsense.

So, we should rely on science? Like the fact that there is no gay gene on the fully mapped human genome? We should rely on studies that find random correlations in one study group, which fall apart in other study groups ... like finding three random blondes in one group of people and zero in another? We should rely on genetics? Which indicates that homosexuality, using Mendel's Techniques, to prove er ... wait, that supports the choice side? We should ignore documented and public cases of sexuality swaps ... like Ann Heche, who goes from being a full blown celebrity lesbian, to married with kids, because gay people state that they are just born that way?

And of course, the standard you just set out is that anecdotal evidence will not, indeed should not, determine the answer to that question.

I agree with you.

Its rather why I disagree with you on this subject.

Why is every other form of sexuality subject to choice save homosexuality? Its an intellectual cop out, and one that ex gays testify to.

And the ex gays will not remain in the shadows.

And what happens in the future when someone is 'married' and then discovers, like Weller did, that his or her homosexuality is a lie? But the basis of the current legal consideration is that homosexuality is immutable ... unchangeable. So what happens when the hasbian switches ... and the law says she cannot ... its impossible? Her choice is simply NOT possible based on what you argue.

We have ourselves a problem.

Homosexuality is a choice, albiet a deeply personal one, we should not be making laws based on its false assessment as an immutable characteristic.

If you believe its immutable, please make the case ... but simply ignoring inconvenient facts does not make your position intellectually proven.

It is exactly that basis that I disagree with most - agree with me or ... I will insult you? Dismiss you as an extremist? No thank you. That is not a good reason for a society changing policy.

[california boy]

So, we should rely on science? Like the fact that there is no gay gene on the fully mapped human genome? We should rely on studies that find random correlations in one study group, which fall apart in other study groups ... like finding three random blondes in one group of people and zero in another? We should rely on genetics? Which indicates that homosexuality, using Mendel's Techniques, to prove er ... wait, that supports the choice side? We should ignore documented and public cases of sexuality swaps ... like Ann Heche, who goes from being a full blown celebrity lesbian, to married with kids, because gay people state that they are just born that way?

And of course, the standard you just set out is that anecdotal evidence will not, indeed should not, determine the answer to that question.

I agree with you.

Well, we are making some progress. I would hope that you would look to the church for guidance in answering this question.

Its rather why I disagree with you on this subject.

Why is every other form of sexuality subject to choice save homosexuality? Its an intellectual cop out, and one that ex gays testify to.

So you believe that heterosexuality is a choice? You do realize that most people would disagree with you. Would you label them extremists as well?

And the ex gays will not remain in the shadows.

And what happens in the future when someone is 'married' and then discovers, like Weller did, that his or her homosexuality is a lie? But the basis of the current legal consideration is that homosexuality is immutable ... unchangeable. So what happens when the hasbian switches ... and the law says she cannot ... its impossible? Her choice is simply NOT possible based on what you argue.

We have ourselves a problem.

I assume it is the same problem we have when gays marry someone of the opposite sex. What law are you talking about that would not allow her to switch? Gay people divorce from opposite couples do they not? Is the law forcing them to "not switch"? You just aren't making any sense.

Homosexuality is a choice, albiet a deeply personal one, we should not be making laws based on its false assessment as an immutable characteristic.

It is not me that is making any laws. I might add that not once did lawyers supporting Prop 8 try and make the case that homosexuality is a choice in the court cases. Unlike you, they were unwilling to go against the leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States in favor of antidotal evidence. And I might add, that their star witness has since recanted his testimony and now favors gay marriage. You got an uphill battle if you think your arguments are going to be considered by the courts on this issue.

If you believe its immutable, please make the case ... but simply ignoring inconvenient facts does not make your position intellectually proven.

It is exactly that basis that I disagree with most - agree with me or ... I will insult you? Dismiss you as an extremist? No thank you. That is not a good reason for a society changing policy.

You can certainly dismiss me as an "extremist" if you wish. But you do realize that you will also have to dismiss the majority of Americans including the President of the United States and the majority in the Senate as "extremist". If that makes you feel better to justify you belief on this subject, go ahead, feel free.

I know I have been gay since I was 12. I tried most of my life to change those feelings. You telling me it is just a choice I made is irrelevant to me. Your opinion is also irrelevant to the church. The inspired leaders have counseled gay members to remain celibate and choose a life of living alone. Those that can marry are free to do so, but warn that marriage is not therapy. Your opinion is irrelevant in the courts of this country.

[gree0232]

Well, we are making some progress. I would hope that you would look to the church for guidance in answering this question.

So you believe that heterosexuality is a choice? You do realize that most people would disagree with you. Would you label them extremists as well?

I assume it is the same problem we have when gays marry someone of the opposite sex. What law are you talking about that would not allow her to switch? Gay people divorce from opposite couples do they not? Is the law forcing them to "not switch"? You just aren't making any sense.

It is not me that is making any laws. I might add that not once did lawyers supporting Prop 8 try and make the case that homosexuality is a choice in the court cases. Unlike you, they were unwilling to go against the leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States in favor of antidotal evidence. And I might add, that their star witness has since recanted his testimony and now favors gay marriage. You got an uphill battle if you think your arguments are going to be considered by the courts on this issue.

You can certainly dismiss me as an "extremist" if you wish. But you do realize that you will also have to dismiss the majority of Americans including the President of the United States and the majority in the Senate as "extremist". If that makes you feel better to justify you belief on this subject, go ahead, feel free.

I know I have been gay since I was 12. I tried most of my life to change those feelings. You telling me it is just a choice I made is irrelevant to me. Your opinion is also irrelevant to the church. The inspired leaders have counseled gay members to remain celibate and choose a life of living alone. Those that can marry are free to do so, but warn that marriage is not therapy. Your opinion is irrelevant in the courts of this country.

People are all entitled to an opinion brother, but not all opinions are equal - nor are they all equally based on objective assessment.

I believe the conclusion that choice is a the over riding factor in homosexual activity is both paramount and obviously so. Not only do we have former gay lesbians and gay men, but we have the utter absence of evidence in the places you would expect to find it if indeed there are biological causes, beyond choice, at play. There is no gay gene, we've looked. There is no identifiable biological trigger for homosexuality (or other forms of sexuality BTW), and we've looked. THe best we can get is to identify some random correlations in a study group.

All we have against that back drop is the claim, utterly without evidence, that homosexuality is beyond choice. That it is immutable - and we have a very strong reason in homosexuals to make such a claim do we not? We have a motive for dishonesty in this case, and indeed, the hostility to former gay people, who remain God's Children as do we all, is further corroborative evidence of a desire to not examine a totally unsupported claim too closely ... lest you realize that it is both unsupported.

For thousands of years people who have chosen to engage in homosexual activity have done so knowing, as do we all, that certain sexual choices come with a price. This remains true for all sexual choices save that, apparently, of homosexuality. If you choose to commit adultery? We can tell you plainly that you are wrong, not that you are victim of some diabolical biology. If you choose to have sex with an underage woman, this is indicative of poor judgement and even pooer character, it is NOT the result of a temptation, love apparently, so powerful that it was written into your very genetic code. Yet with homosexuality, it MUST be different? Why?

Thousands of years ago, when the Old Testament first warned of the danger of men lying together, the reasons were fairly obvious. In a tribal society, one where title and property passed down through male heirs, to take up a homosexual lifestyle was to abandon your family and duty to your tribe. Indeed, so damaging was the choice, that should the enemy find out about it ... they might well attack then and there rather than wait for the inevitable dead end of the family to take the spoils. For some reason, these men, even if tempted, were able to suppress and control their sexual desire ... sublimate it to duty.

In China, should you read the ancient literature, you will quickly discover scenes of sexual proclivity that would make even the barbarians among us blush. You will also quickly notice that these sexual proclivities were the result of the upper classes excesses ... as much the result of power plays dealt with in the flesh as they were about sex or love, and, as such, were a definitive reflection upon the character of these men ... one reason Mao so eagerly attacked homosexuality.

Thousands of years of history and warning, but now ... its a civil rights moment - and to caste this warning makes YOU the bigot?

Homosexuality is not immutable and like any other sexual choice, it comes with a price.

It is one thing to tolerate a difference in opinion. If gay people want to be gay ... more power to them. They are consenting adults - as you say. However, the issue with gay marriage is that its beyond tolerance ... it crosses the line into government sanctioned advocacy. There is a difference between tolerating a different opinion ... and advocating one that for thousands of years, across all cultures and faiths, people have held qualms about ... perhaps some caution is in order before leap over the ledge?

Perhaps demanding a little proof, a little cost benefit analysis just might be in order before leaping into the legal premise that sex and skin color are immutable - inevitable - beyond choice.

That legal principle, BTW, once established, does not stop with homosexuality. It applies to other forms ... and just reading this thread, you can see that polygamists are waiting and watching ... and that one, I can say I have seen close up, which, just like the homosexual community, there are some who do it and do it well. But there are many more whose rapacious appetites have made a mockery of any pure intentions in that institution.

But alas ... the legal case is being made now ... sex is ... beyond choice. No evidence required ... just volume and accusation.

So yes brother, my opinion is different than yours, and I believe it is so for solid reasons.

No two opinions are equal, but generally speaking, in debate and policy the stronger, better supported position SHOULD win out.

Then again, emotionalism and demonization, are awfully effective tools to rally around, especially in the short term ... and one the wise learn to avoid, especially in the long term.

PS - one final thought - if the basis for homosexual marriage is that your sexual attraction is immutable, i.e. unchangeable, and someone suddenly, as I have provided evidence for, is no longer gay ... there is no legal basis for divorce. That does not mean that gay people should not divorce, it means in that circumstance ... there is NO LEGAL BASIS for divorce - it is legally binding as impossible or the entire immutable claim of homosexuality is out the door. A hasbian, which we know exists, cannot change her orientation without invalidating the very LEGAL basis for homosexual marriage.

Do you see why the homosexual community wants that aspect of the debate suppressed with such ferocity?

Interesting how the evidence stacks up for one side when they look for it in the places they expect to find it ... and have their deductions confirmed.

PSS - I do like the ending, I am gay ... therefore you are irrelevant? Anything that stands up to your opinion on sexuality MUST be wrong? Please re-read Mr. Weller's testimony. Please bear in mind, if I could not control my heterosexual tendencies and constantly slept around, I would neither be granted the priesthood, nor would I be counseled to marry.

The inability to control ones sexual appetites is a curse regardless of gender attraction.

Edited May 13, 2013 by gree0232

[california boy]

You have some very flawed views. Homosexuality is an orientation, not a sexual act. Adultery is a sexual act. Having sex with the same gender is a sexual act. So comparing someone who is gay to someone who commits adultery is apples to oranges. They are not related.

How many times does the church have to explain to you and others the difference between being gay which is not a sin and having sex with the same gender which is viewed as a sin by the church. Are you so caught up in this diatribe you are on that you completely ignore the teachings of the inspired leadership of the church? Until you are able to get this difference clearly in your mind, talking about these other issues is pointless. If you are completely willing to dismiss the views of the church leaders on this subject, why would I think you would listen to what I have to say?

[Stone holm]

I see you did not read what I presented from China. Moa, the father of the communist revolution, demonized homosexuality ... guess what party remains in power in China? And if referrences to capitalism touch off sensitivities ... what do you think actually bringing up the issue of homosexuality will do inside party channels?

One piece of fluff in the news does not change the hard realities of China ... nor does it ask, much less answer, WHY Moa chose to demonize homosexuality as part of the revolution. Indeed, you seem wholly interested and are indeed avoiding that portion of the conversation.

Which goes back to that point - things we push into the shadows do not remain in the shadows forever.

There is a reason that every major religion on earth took issue with homosexuality. There is reason that societies who have tolerated have reversed course with the passage of time.

Simply because it has been framed as a civil rights issue rather than question of sexuality does not mean the implications of a decidedly sexual activity go away or suddenly have no consequences.

I will remind you what has been said by former gay men:

"I tried imitating others when they said they were born gay, I would say "me too"! It seemed an easy way to get people to accept us. If we were born gay that took away any personal responsibility for our behavior and made people feel sorry for us. All along though, we knew it was a convenient lie.

I love and respect myself today, but I hate the things that I used to do. Homosexual sexuality is perverse and unhealthy, both physically and emotionally. We put on such a respectable image, but inside we were miserable and ashamed. Like many young gays, I tried to commit suicide because I didn't think there was a way out.

Today I am living proof that homosexuals can and do change. I was as deep in the lifestyle as anyone. I spent nine years with my piano teacher and even thought about getting "married." I was 100% gay, now I am 100% recovered from that sick and twisted life. They call it "gay", but I wasn't gay at all, I was miserable. I can't think of a more miserable way of life.

Some people believe that compassion for homosexuals means approving of their lifestyle,It is especially painful to watch the radical gays manipulate their own parents and relatives into endorsing the gay political agenda, but I thank God that others still have the guts to insist that it's wrong, otherwise I might still be trapped. Every time I hear someone talk approvingly of homosexuality, or see them go along with the idea of "gay rights" it breaks my heart, because I know it's like slamming the escape door on so many. "

http://www.newswithv...psychology2.htm

Shall we simply ignore testimonies like this so we can claim that homosexuality is immutable and beyond choice? Why?

And a better question ... why is the homosexual community burying things like this? Screaming that they are discrimination? What is the agenda?

Tyrants and the groups which support them whether on the extreme right or extreme left always pick minority groups to demonize. That is why some Evangelist ministers devote so much time and rhetoric to demonize Mormons. It distracts people from the real issues and weak points in the tyrannical group's plans and policies. The question is at what point should the Church disengage from a movement.

[Bikeemikey]

Gree0232,

Your thoughts are not my thoughts, nor the thoughts of any other LDS individual that I personally know.

What you have expressed is simply hostile and insulting.

Our church believes homosexuality a sin. We believe we should love the sinner. I think you are out of line and likely doing enormous damage to people's understanding of my religion and the gospel.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Unfortunately, this is getting way to convoluted to follow. I tried digging around, and the way they've recorded the legislation makes it difficult to determine exactly what has been replaced. However, I'll point out the following observations in order to get back to addressing the claim that the church is anti-gay.

Again, as far as I can tell, there were some potentially troubling aspects of the legislation, especially concerning young boys, that could have been problematic in the church's view.

We don't know who initiated the campaign to have members of the church actively work against the legislation.

We don't know what the actual stated position or reason the church (or someone in the church) had for initiating a campaign.

From your comments, we know that many stakes chose not to participate in the campaign.

Unless we can get those questions answered, the existence of a campaign that we can't get any real details on is hardly support for terming the church as anti-gay. Also, the fact that many stakes chose not to participate in the campaign would be evidence that the opposite is true, and that a systematic or institutional anti-gay agenda was in place.

Your requirement for additional evidence is understandable and reasonable. It is however not something I can provide.

The observation that opposition to this specific law may have had to do with non-gay considerations is warranted and a very legitimate and important one.

Let's try a different approach:

First, it seems important for you the the church is not anti-gay.

Second, you seem to have a definition of being anti-something that is hard to reconcile with how I see it in common use today.

So let's start with something basic: your church is anti-sin. We are opposed to all sin and actively work to make this know and ask govts not to take steps that are seen to normalize sin.

Homosexual acts are a sin.

The church is anti-homosexual acts.

I think these is a reasonable line to thinking and reflects the churches current position on the matter. Would you agree with this??

The problem historically is that church rhetoric and membership has only recently perfected this particular line of communication on the issue.

Twenty years ago it would have been homosexuality is a sin, thereby making the church anti-homosexual (anti-gay).

The nuance of the current days communication by the church on the subject, in my opinion, is much better. It makes it easier to hate the sin and love the sinner.

As such, I don't think that we need to look at what the church has done in the public sphere at all to arrive at the conclusion we have been anti-gay. It is sufficient to say the church is anti-sin, being gay was a sin, therefore we were anti-gay.

Right now in the church being gay is not a sin. Engaging in gay acts is a sin. We have moved from being anti-gay to anti-gay acts.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Bikeemikey