So Is Pope Francis Leading The Catholics Into Tolerance, Did The Lds Church Just Lose A Political Ally?

[california boy]

I think that you need to educate yourself on this issue a little more. Strangely, in my posts I am standing up for gay men. I want them to be educated that the 'free' lifestyle is not so free. One cannot argue with the research. As gays fight for SSM, many young homosexual men are catching HIV because of their unrecognized lifestyle. And yes, you will not see this lifestyle on the television in any sitcom as displayed in the research. The gay community needs to become award of the problem.

Now of course, there is other research that shows a decline in gay promiscuous relationships. However, the point is the more young gay males are contacting HIV because of their behavior. And this needs to change.

See my post to Calmoriah. When churches tell all gays that they are immoral by the very nature of who they love and want to be with, then how can anyone turn around and expect them to worry about immorality. Statistically people who are activally involved and believe in a church have less sex partners whether they are gay or straight. The statistics you presented above bear that out. No surprise really. So what is your point?

[Stone holm]

You are kind of talking through both sides of your mouth. There is no room in the gospel for any marriage that is not legal no matter who performs it. Anyone who has a pretend marriage and has sex is committing a sin whether they are monogamous or have multiple partners. The sin is the same. Sex outside a legal and lawful marriage is the sin. As far as I know, having sex with just one person outside of a legal marriage doesn't make the sin somehow better. So what difference does it make if a gay person or a straight person has a monogamous relationship outside of marriage or multiple partners? The sin is the same. The repentance would be the same.

You can not compare the commitment of a fake gay marriage with a legal and lawful marriage. So yeah, gays have not had the legal right to be married. And it does make a difference in how they view fidelity because they know the sin is the same. What difference does it make to them how many partners they have. Could you tell them that if they have a monogamous relationship, somehow their judgement will be different? Now do you understand why many gay men have decided that monogamy only matters if it is important to their partner? Gay men can't be with someone they love and be moral. Church dogma teaches that to every gay man. Most have given up on that as something to strive towards. They have chosen to be immoral rather than live a life of loneliness with no one to share their life with. It is not as hard of decision as you might think it is. And yeah, the statistics bear this brutal fact out quite clearly. No surprise there really.

Hum, actually the repentance may not be the same, at least it didn't use to be. It used to take First Presidency permission to rebaptism after a homosexual excursion. That may have changed, but I doubt it.

[Calm]

nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.

We are then talking about a third of AIDs sufferers not being gay men, if so it is very not a "gay disease" anymore than the fact that men have much higher rates of heart disease leading to death make that a 'man's disease'.

[Calm]

. And yes, you will not see this lifestyle on the television in any sitcom as displayed in the research. The gay community needs to become award of the problem.

I remember there used to be a lot of tv dramas showing HIV and AIDS sufferers and how difficult things were for them, how loving some people were in caring for them etc. I think it was well done in contributing to the awareness of the issue for the general public and probably helped fundraising efforts for medical research, etc....not a bad thing.

I don't remember any such programs for quite sometime. I don't think sitcoms are likely going to be places where stupid behaviour leads to serious consequences rather than funny ones, it's never been that way for sitcoms since they were created (Lucy of I Love Lucy fame should have ended up mutilated and dismembers quite a few times IIRC and probably divorced in any actual marriage considering how she attempted to manipulate everyone to get what she wanted), however I could see the more dramatic shows being more realistic about all of the harsher realities of life including birth defects, disabilities, mental health AND consequences for hetero and homosexual promiscuity.

Don't see it happening anytime soon on a regular basis, people watch TV to escape reality, not to be educated in the less pleasant aspects of it.

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You are kind of talking through both sides of your mouth. There is no room in the gospel for any marriage that is not legal no matter who performs it.

No, I am not. I am not locked in to only discussing my own faith no matter how much you try to make it about me.

I am talking about individuals marrying within their own faith/belief system even if that is simply the two of them going before God and making personal vows. Nothing is stopping anyone who does not feel the need to live by LDS or other faiths' standards that teach homosexuality is a sin from marrying by whatever standard they personally choose to live.

Gay men can't be with someone they love and be moral

And since when do the majority of gay men or any person for that matter accept someone else's standard of morality as their own...unless they believe in it as well?

I am talking about people making choices based on their own belief system, not judging them by my own standards.

If they believe they are moral in their relationship, then why not marry in some fashion they see as marriage even if the world is telling them their marriage is a sham? Like I said before, I have seen individuals long before SSM became a major political football describe their relationship as a marriage and I assumed that they treated each other as marriage partners. Not having legal recognition or recognition from every church in existence didn't bother them. They either were part of a church that accepted them and held such ceremonies or they made their own.

They wouldn't be thrown in jail for doing so, so why not go through a marriage meaningful to themselves even if it doesn't have meaning for others? Why insist that they can't be married in their own way unless society accepts them as married?

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Now do you understand why many gay men have decided that monogamy only matters if it is important to their partner?

I never did not understand.

So tell me why it appears to matters to so few if that stats are correct?

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[sheilauk]

They have chosen to be immoral rather than live a life of loneliness with no one to share their life with. It is not as hard of decision as you might think it is.

Herein lies one of the problems of today, amongst heterosexuals and gays - a belief that you can only be happy if you are having a sexual relationship with someone and sharing your life with someone. If not, you will be lonely. This is not true. I'm single and live the Church's standards and have for years and I'm not lonely and I share my life with family, friends and Christ. People in previous generations often remained single and celibate for many years, especially if widowed and many women were widowed young by war. And you can be 'sharing' your life with someone and still be lonely as divorcees and others who've separated from their partners will attest. The choice is not loneliness and chastity, not being lonely and immorality but, if you have Faith, whether you will be obedient or not and, if you don't have Faith, then the Golden Rule should apply - don't hurt anyone whatever you choose to do.

[Stone holm]

AIDS is not an inherently gay disease, it just started there in the US. It like all sexually transmitted diseases is promiscuity based. So of course we would object to them formalising committed relationships it is just the obvious solution...not.

[Calm]

Perhaps this will make my position clear...

I get it when someone says "I can't get federal and state benefits that someone else is getting until the governments agree to give me those same federal and state benefits". That is just logical and I can see why anyone might want to pursue that.

I don't get it when someone says "I can't get married until someone tells me I can" if that person is an independent and competent adult because marriage to me is a social definition that one can choose to apply in the limits of any community one picks to belong to, whether it is the LDS faith, the Catholic one, the Buddhist one or a gay support group located in San Francisco that I used to know.

How two people choose to view their marriage relationship including their relationship with their extended chosen family/community (which may be anything one chooses, not what one was born with or grew up with or live in) is up to them as well as whether or not they want to place judgment of their relationship in anyone else's hands...iow, they don't have to if they don't want to.

Edited August 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

I remember there used to be a lot of tv dramas showing HIV and AIDS sufferers and how difficult things were for them, how loving some people were in caring for them etc. I think it was well done in contributing to the awareness of the issue for the general public and probably helped fundraising efforts for medical research, etc....not a bad thing.

When the outbreak first happened, this was the case. The reason was for educating people and the gay community. But at some point, this was left behind when the hollywood gay community began to stress gay marriage and began to show the hetero community that the gay person is just like the hetero person. No different. Which can be true, but this doesn't help the young gay males who believe that antiviral drugs are a 'cure' from death and so, practice promiscuous sex.

[why me]

AIDS is not an inherently gay disease, it just started there in the US. It like all sexually transmitted diseases is promiscuity based. So of course we would object to them formalising committed relationships it is just the obvious solution...not.

But AIDS does affect the gay community and a large percentage of gay men. And they are more likely to get HIV. However, hollywood has forgotten to educate these men and instead focused on getting the heteos on board with gay marriage. Maybe when they win this victory, they will then go back to educating us all about HIV again.

[california boy]

No, I am not. I am not locked in to only discussing my own faith no matter how much you try to make it about me.

I am talking about individuals marrying within their own faith/belief system even if that is simply the two of them going before God and making personal vows. Nothing is stopping anyone who does not feel the need to live by LDS or other faiths' standards that teach homosexuality is a sin from marrying by whatever standard they personally choose to live.

And since when do the majority of gay men or any person for that matter accept someone else's standard of morality as their own...unless they believe in it as well?

I am talking about people making choices based on their own belief system, not judging them by my own standards.

If they believe they are moral in their relationship, then why not marry in some fashion they see as marriage even if the world is telling them their marriage is a sham? Like I said before, I have seen individuals long before SSM became a major political football describe their relationship as a marriage and I assumed that they treated each other as marriage partners. Not having legal recognition or recognition from every church in existence didn't bother them. They either were part of a church that accepted them and held such ceremonies or they made their own.

They wouldn't be thrown in jail for doing so, so why not go through a marriage meaningful to themselves even if it doesn't have meaning for others? Why insist that they can't be married in their own way unless society accepts them as married?

Many do just as you are suggesting. It is one of the things that I pointed out earlier in the thread when I mentioned my friends that were at dinner the other night. One couple had been together for 33 years in a monogamous relationship. The other couple for 24 years in a monogamous relationship. Me and my boyfriend who have been together for 5 years. And our single friend Robert who is still looking. I could name numerous friends that have been with their partners for a number of years. So yeah, what you suggest is in fact a very real situation. Sitcoms have never been noted for portraying life as it really is. Most gay people, me included hate most of the sterotype "token gay character" that is portrayed on television. There are some shows like Modern Family that I won't even watch because I hate the way that gay couple is portrayed. It is not my gay world. But it is television. And some people find the screeching gay husband to be funny.

Is there a large gay population that have thrown away the religious morals you suggest? Yes, of course. Is all I am pointing out, is that there are underlying reasons why many have abandoned the faith they grew up in. The same can be said for heterosexual couples. Marriage may not ever be a part of their lives. But that doesn't mean that the government should withhold marriage from anyone. It is not only about equality and what is right, it is also about trying to change some of these attitudes within the gay community. In fact, those changes have already started happening. Many gay couples are choosing a more stable relationship under a lawfully legal marriage. This is a good thing and should be encouraged, not prevented, just a straight couples are encouraged to be married and form more stable relationships. There are no good reasons to deny gay couples the right to marry. There are many good reasons why the government should encourage such relationships. I am glad the church has dropped their activisim against gay marriage. I think it was a wise decision by the brotheren.

[Calm]

Many do just as you are suggesting.

Yes, I know. That is why I said I've seen it. My problem is with those who complain that they are not allowed to marry without specifying it is the federal and state benefits of legal recognition they are talking about as opposed to being able to establish a loving, stable relationship on their own if they so desire.

But the stats would seem to indicate that even for those that do, monogamy is not seen as including sexual fidelity.

Edited August 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[california boy]

Herein lies one of the problems of today, amongst heterosexuals and gays - a belief that you can only be happy if you are having a sexual relationship with someone and sharing your life with someone. If not, you will be lonely. This is not true. I'm single and live the Church's standards and have for years and I'm not lonely and I share my life with family, friends and Christ. People in previous generations often remained single and celibate for many years, especially if widowed and many women were widowed young by war. And you can be 'sharing' your life with someone and still be lonely as divorcees and others who've separated from their partners will attest. The choice is not loneliness and chastity, not being lonely and immorality but, if you have Faith, whether you will be obedient or not and, if you don't have Faith, then the Golden Rule should apply - don't hurt anyone whatever you choose to do.

I wish gay people had the support structure you value so much. Unfortunately many do not. My family has not invited me to a family event for 4 years. A gay man is not allowed to date someone they are attracted to. They can't even hold hands. Unlie the widower, most don't have children to embrace and enrich their lives. There is no hope for them that they could ever meet anyone and share their life with. Those are major differences in their celebate life compared to yours. If you did not have your family including you and supporting you, how different would your happiness be?

[california boy]

But AIDS does affect the gay community and a large percentage of gay men. And they are more likely to get HIV. However, hollywood has forgotten to educate these men and instead focused on getting the heteos on board with gay marriage. Maybe when they win this victory, they will then go back to educating us all about HIV again.

I think if you are relying on TV sitcoms to educate the public about the dangers of promiscuous sex in the gay or straight world, you will be sadly disappointed.

[california boy]

Yes, I know. That is why I said I've seen it. My problem is with those who complain that they are not allowed to marry without specifying it is the federal and state benefits of legal recognition they are talking about as opposed to being able to establish a loving, stable relationship on their own if they so desire.

But the stats would seem to indicate that even for those that do, monogamy is not seen as including sexual fidelity.

For me, and for the majority of Americans, it is not JUST the benefits. It is about a very basic value that Americans believe in. That all Americans should be treated equally under the law. Preventing gays from marrying under the law is just wrong. There are over 1400 rights given to married couples. And yes, that is also a major reason why discriminating against gays is wrong. Denying equal benefits is also wrong. There is no compelling reason why this prejudice against gay couples should continue. Change is occurring. For most gay couples, not fast enough. Why would you have a problem with equal treatment under the law?

[Calm]

That all Americans should be treated equally under the law.

Yes, I said this before in my description that is how they are describing it.

[Ran]

For me, and for the majority of Americans, it is not JUST the benefits. It is about a very basic value that Americans believe in. That all Americans should be treated equally under the law. Preventing gays from marrying under the law is just wrong. There are over 1400 rights given to married couples. And yes, that is also a major reason why discriminating against gays is wrong. Denying equal benefits is also wrong. There is no compelling reason why this prejudice against gay couples should continue. Change is occurring. For most gay couples, not fast enough. Why would you have a problem with equal treatment under the law?

"Equal treatment under the law," *by itself,* seems to me to be an inadequate reason, as that principle would justify the granting of the legal recognition of marriage not only to gay couples, but also to polyamorist groups, pre-pubescents, adults and pre-pubescents, siblings, and even non-sexual communities like a a convent-full of nuns. When one scratches the surface of the gay marriage debate, one finds a more fundamental issue: what is marriage?

[Storm Rider]

There is the issue of identifying things that are intrinsically evil or wrong. Those that propose that somehow that which is evil should be viewed healthy, good, and positive for our society. I suspect that what these individuals have done is evolved to the point that instead of acknowledging the presence of evil they have mutated it to a standard that is so low they must logically discount all evil. They logic results in the failure of society because it is the ultimate hedonistic approach to life. It revolves not in what is healthy, virtuous, or beautiful, but only what results in instantaneous gratification regardless of any other concern or objective.

[Stone holm]

Repulsive yes, against the Divine Order as we Mormons construe it, but inherently evil? I doubt it.

[california boy]

There is the issue of identifying things that are intrinsically evil or wrong. Those that propose that somehow that which is evil should be viewed healthy, good, and positive for our society. I suspect that what these individuals have done is evolved to the point that instead of acknowledging the presence of evil they have mutated it to a standard that is so low they must logically discount all evil. They logic results in the failure of society because it is the ultimate hedonistic approach to life. It revolves not in what is healthy, virtuous, or beautiful, but only what results in instantaneous gratification regardless of any other concern or objective.

Your view of what is evil is rooted in your religious interpretation of the Bible and a strong belief of what you think is the will of God.. Others have come to a different conclusion. Gay relationships are no more hedonistic than heterosexual relationships. The only difference is that heterosexuals are allowed to marry.

[Bikeemikey]

"Equal treatment under the law," *by itself,* seems to me to be an inadequate reason, as that principle would justify the granting of the legal recognition of marriage not only to gay couples, but also to polyamorist groups, pre-pubescents, adults and pre-pubescents, siblings, and even non-sexual communities like a a convent-full of nuns. When one scratches the surface of the gay marriage debate, one finds a more fundamental issue: what is marriage?

I am so sick of hearing this silly regressive argument based on bad slippery slope thinking. It's a terrible argument.

I totally agree that the real question is, "what is marriage?" In addition to, "who controls the meaning" and, "should state and federal benefits be linked to it"?

But that's just my opinion!

Edited August 4, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Ran]

I am so sick of hearing this silly regressive argument based on bad slippery slope thinking. It's a terrible argument.

I totally agree that the real question is, "what is marriage?" In addition to, "who controls the meaning" and, "should state and federal benefits be linked to it"?

But that's just my opinion!

It's not a slippery slope thinking. The argument doesn't assert that gay marriage will lead to polyamorous marriage, for example. Rather, it shows that the principle used to justify one, also justifies the other. If one of the essential features of marriage entails a union of two persons, then the principle of "equal treatment under the law," while necessary, is insufficient.

[Storm Rider]

Your view of what is evil is rooted in your religious interpretation of the Bible and a strong belief of what you think is the will of God.. Others have come to a different conclusion. Gay relationships are no more hedonistic than heterosexual relationships. The only difference is that heterosexuals are allowed to marry.

You wrote that with a straight face? Tell me you don't really think we are that ignorant or that naive?

[Stone holm]

It's not a slippery slope thinking. The argument doesn't assert that gay marriage will lead to polyamorous marriage, for example. Rather, it shows that the principle used to justify one, also justifies the other. If one of the essential features of marriage entails a union of two persons, then the principle of "equal treatment under the law," while necessary, is insufficient.

If its not a slippery slope argument it sure sounds like one. But, I am not sure why would necessarily be right to object to polyamorist consenting adults.