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

[Calm]

Remind me tomorrow...today is not a good day, I just want to curl up on my bed around a good book or the laptop and veg.

[Stone holm]

I am not suggesting they should be looked at with disdain, etc, but given the low stats on sexuality fidelity in homosexual marriage and civil unions, do you still see that (those marriages which are open) as a sufficient unity and commitment that is pleasing to God and making what they have holy and sacred?

I don't believe in issuing CFR, but do you really think that our heterosexual fidelity stats are so good that this is a viable argument?

[Calm]

Depends on what argument I am actually making.

[Storm Rider]

I don't believe in issuing CFR, but do you really think that our heterosexual fidelity stats are so good that this is a viable argument?

Are you proposing that two wrongs somehow make it acceptable? Do you only evaluate your own actions relative to the actions of others? This is a red herring and has nothing to do with the topic.

[california boy]

Are you proposing that two wrongs somehow make it acceptable? Do you only evaluate your own actions relative to the actions of others? This is a red herring and has nothing to do with the topic.

I think it is a beam and eye thing he is pointing out.

[Storm Rider]

That is still a dodge and evade from addressing the problem.

[why me]

Please explain three things.

1. What is happening to straight couples as a result of gays marrying.

2. How does gay couples that want to marry send a message to anyone that marriage is less important?

3. Do you think that those who oppose gay couples from marrying are in fact encouraging couples to live together rather than marry? If you don't think that, please explain why it is not sending a message that marriage is not for everyone.

I don't think that much will happen to straight couples as a result of gays marrying. I think that the damage has been done decades ago and this damage is getting worse as the wear and tear of the traditional family contines. Gays marrying is just one more nail in the coffin of traditional family and the conception of what such a family is. I don't see anything positive for the family from it. The idea of couples living together began in the 70s. Before that various terms were used to disparage such a happening, ie, shacking up. But now it is rather common that couples live together before they marry. Also, have children out of wedlock. Such behavior is normal now. So, gay marriage is just one more event that takes away from the definition of traditional family.

[why me]

I think for the most part you are confusing symptoms with causes. What happened in the 60's was a reaction to the hypocrisy of the prior generation and its rigidity of ideology which was literally killing the rising generation.

The sixties gave birth to the sexual revolution with the birth control pill leading the way. It may have been a protest againt the 50s but then again I would assume that the 50s were not such a bad time in The United States. People still had hopes and dreams and life was moving forward. For the hipsters, the 50s were cofining and for the new feminists, the 50s were too confining. However, what is the result of all this 40 years later? Can we say that tthe family is in a healthy state? Are women doing better now? Are men? Or are both genders feeling the effects of what I would call chaos in what is a family?

[Stone holm]

The sixties gave birth to the sexual revolution with the birth control pill leading the way. It may have been a protest againt the 50s but then again I would assume that the 50s were not such a bad time in The United States. People still had hopes and dreams and life was moving forward. For the hipsters, the 50s were cofining and for the new feminists, the 50s were too confining. However, what is the result of all this 40 years later? Can we say that tthe family is in a healthy state? Are women doing better now? Are men? Or are both genders feeling the effects of what I would call chaos in what is a family?

Trying to understand the 60's is difficult even for those of us who lived through them. Vietnam played a massive role. My personal memory says my parents generation was actually not very religious, or religious in a very superficial way. It was hard back then in America not to be successful economically . We had basically destroyed the industrial world and it was just slowly regaining its feet and was dependant on us. We were still living at a time when there was still considerable economic equality and a robust middle class. But we had been fought to a stalemate in one war and were mired in another war that the generation fighting it did not understand and did not support. This generation was looking for meaning in life that they saw lacking in their parents. So they rebelled, mainline religion declined but unorthodox religions saw explosive growth including our own. Times were a changing including marriage.

[Tacenda]

Remind me tomorrow...today is not a good day, I just want to curl up on my bed around a good book or the laptop and veg.

I'm not reminding you, mind you. But just hoping you got a good veg out!

[Calm]

I think it is a beam and eye thing he is pointing out.

Wouldn't this only apply if one didn't condemn adultery in heterosexual marriages?

[Calm]

I'm not reminding you, mind you. But just hoping you got a good veg out!

I did, thank you, but whatever was bugging me yesterday is still bugging me today...and we've got people coming to put in new countertops at 1 so I have to put some effort into covering up the drawers and stuff so dust doesn't get into them...already took everything out of the kitchen that could go...except for the stuff on top of the cupboards which needs to be cleaned anyway.

We've been waiting 10 years to get rid of the faded pink in our kitchen....how I wish we could wait for one more day.

If my head focuses enough I'll go look for it, I don't want to just go the easy route as there are a lot of poorly used stats out there on this subject. It has been discussed before on the thread, IIRC, studies down among the gay communities themselves in various countries, etc., talks given by gay activists about how they see marriage (if it is to be engaged in at all) as something different than the typical heterosexual does.

Edited August 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Are you proposing that two wrongs somehow make it acceptable? Do you only evaluate your own actions relative to the actions of others? This is a red herring and has nothing to do with the topic.

No I am saying that the argument isn't persuasive. Its kind of like serial monogamists complaining about polygamy. Rather than a red herring, I would call it more the pot calling the kettle black sort of thing.

[Storm Rider]

Comparing the number of encounters of the common gay man to the number of encounters between the common heterosexual man is like comparing the height between a small person and Kareem Abdul Jabar. Sure both of them have height, but it is preposterous to then say the midget is calling the giant tall is the pot calling the kettle black. The studies are more than clear that the number of partners for the gay man is extremely high relative to the common heterosexual man. This is not an argument; there is no argument; it is just a fact. What amazes me is how hard people fight to ignore these facts or any other fact that that puts this lifestyle in a poor light. Get this....oh forget it. It just is not worth my time.

[Tacenda]

Comparing the number of encounters of the common gay man to the number of encounters between the common heterosexual man is like comparing the height between a small person and Kareem Abdul Jabar. Sure both of them have height, but it is preposterous to then say the midget is calling the giant tall is the pot calling the kettle black. The studies are more than clear that the number of partners for the gay man is extremely high relative to the common heterosexual man. This is not an argument; there is no argument; it is just a fact. What amazes me is how hard people fight to ignore these facts or any other fact that that puts this lifestyle in a poor light. Get this....oh forget it. It just is not worth my time.

That's because the possibility of a legal union and the prospect of forming it has never been on the table like it is now.

[USU78]

That's because the possibility of a legal union and the prospect of forming it has never been on the table like it is now.

Sez the American about America (all the while switching the burden of proof away from those insisting, violently, upon change) . . . while ignoring completely the Danish and Dutch experience.

[Stone holm]

Sez the American about America (all the while switching the burden of proof away from those insisting, violently, upon change) . . . while ignoring completely the Danish and Dutch experience.

And there you have it folks, don't tip toe through the tulips to the sauna....its just not right....

[USU78]

And there you have it folks, don't tip toe through the tulips to the sauna....its just not right....

Help us all understand, SH: If this is not a religious discussion board where religious issues (including moral including sexual) are treated? If it is not, then what, precisely, is it?

You may disagree that homosexual marriage is a moral issue, but GBH was pretty clear about the LDS Church's views back in '99 in Priesthood Session (before you CFR, please give his "Why we do the things we do" address, which I game a re-listen-to on Saturday).

We have both the right and the responsibility to call 'em like we see 'em when it comes to matters of public morals, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Mock all you like, but know that it's your principal audience here that you're mocking.

[california boy]

Wouldn't this only apply if one didn't condemn adultery in heterosexual marriages?

And just how much effort is put into condemning adultry? Are there political organizations trying to pass laws to prevent adultery? Is there a National Organization Against Adultry that receives millions? Does the church set up phone banks to battle adultery? Come on. The church may be both against gay marriage and adultery, but the church has never taken a politically active effort to pass laws against it. So no, it is not quite the same. Wouldn't you agree?

[Stone holm]

Help us all understand, SH: If this is not a religious discussion board where religious issues (including moral including sexual) are treated? If it is not, then what, precisely, is it?

You may disagree that homosexual marriage is a moral issue, but GBH was pretty clear about the LDS Church's views back in '99 in Priesthood Session (before you CFR, please give his "Why we do the things we do" address, which I game a re-listen-to on Saturday).

We have both the right and the responsibility to call 'em like we see 'em when it comes to matters of public morals, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Mock all you like, but know that it's your principal audience here that you're mocking.

I have no problem, in fact I support, the Church disciplining its members over homosexual behaviour, and condemning SSM as far as its members are concerned and explaining our doctrine as to how eternal life is structured. Where I draw the line is political activism aimed at interfering in the lives of people who do not believe as we do. Or grand smear attempts against a minority.

[USU78]

I have no problem, in fact I support, the Church disciplining its members over homosexual behaviour, and condemning SSM as far as its members are concerned and explaining our doctrine as to how eternal life is structured. Where I draw the line is political activism aimed at interfering in the lives of people who do not believe as we do. Or grand smear attempts against a minority.

So . . . believe all you want, but shut up and let all and every other voice be heard but yours.

Is that about the size of it?

[Stone holm]

So . . . believe all you want, but shut up and let all and every other voice be heard but yours.

Is that about the size of it?

No. But, don't base your arguments based on religion when in the political domain and don't base your religion on politics. Sort of a render unto Caesar sort of thing. Mormons I believe have probably the strongest reasons for never embracing SSM of any Christian faith because this isn't a simple matter of The Lord saying don't do it to us, He has explained to us that Eternal life is based on the notion of Heavenly Couples producing spirit children in the hereafter. Thus for us we have a specific reason. But both the commandment and the structure of the hereafter are based on our religious beliefs and we have no right to impose those beliefs on others. Merely calling their activities perverted is not an argument, arguing that they are not traditional is not an argument that should be heard from our mouths because we are the American icon of non traditional marital concepts.

[Storm Rider]

What is absolutely clear is that the Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church have the same standard and the same position in regards to this topic. Much to the chagrin of those ever liberal bleeding hearts, nothing has changed except that these same individuals cannot read English and prefer to take statements out of context in order to achieve their own ends.

[Stone holm]

What is absolutely clear is that the Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church have the same standard and the same position in regards to this topic. Much to the chagrin of those ever liberal bleeding hearts, nothing has changed except that these same individuals cannot read English and prefer to take statements out of context in order to achieve their own ends.

I believe that the Church and the Roman Catholic Church have the same position currently. Whether and for how long that remains true is probably up for grabs. The Catholics have fewer obstacles to embracing homosexual behaviour than we do, so my suspicion is that in the long run there will be divergence. For know, however, both are currently simply trying to tone down the rhetoric which is alienating people and to display a more understanding face towards a group of people.

[Hail_Linus]

I believe that the Church and the Roman Catholic Church have the same position currently. Whether and for how long that remains true is probably up for grabs. The Catholics have fewer obstacles to embracing homosexual behaviour than we do, so my suspicion is that in the long run there will be divergence. For know, however, both are currently simply trying to tone down the rhetoric which is alienating people and to display a more understanding face towards a group of people.

Why do you say "Catholics have fewer obstacles to embracing homosexual behaviour than we do"? The Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior is an unchangeable teaching. No Pope or Ecumenical Council could change it even if they wanted to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, it is possible to change LDS teaching on homosexual behavior.