Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[wenglund]

Now you're getting into hypothetical harm, with a healthy dose of psuedoscience .

 

That is how it may seem to the willfully blind.

 

To those of us with eyes to see, there is ample evidence that the emperor has no clothes--so to speak.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

I guess we just disagree on a lot of fundamental subjects, including whether it is possible to lovingly expel someone from fellowship. I'm not saying it isn't necessary in some cases.

There are two personal examples of loving discipline on the last page or two. And if you would read the manual, you will see that the Church’s approach is to discipline with love. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, the instructions, policies and procdures are there in black in white for all to see.

It is actually only the faithful gay members that are harmed by church policy. Those who want nothing to do with the church are free to pursue healthy relationships. That needs to change - we need to carve out a healthy space for gay people in the church. Not for them to just endure, but for them to thrive.

People, gay and straight, are responsible for their own relationships, healthy or otherwise. No Church policy can fix unhealthy relationships. Where does the Church take responsibility for anyone’s relationship, anyway? To expect that it should comes from an extremely unhealthy paradigm.

No, but I didn't imply that it was.

This is hilarious. You said in post #206: “It is harmful for gay people to remain celibate…” in reference to “a tremendous amount of harm that is being done to gay people” which you asserted in post #199 in connection with your assertion that the Church treats “them” differently in post #198. You’ve got to be able to follow your own argument. But since you responded in this way, you are asserting that celibacy (abstaining from sex outside of marriage, or an unmarried person remaining chaste) is harmful for any member, and the Church is to blame. I’m not going to get into an argument over the merits of the law of chastity.

While I appreciate your attempt at eisegesis of my statement, I can't be responsible for defending the arguments you make on my behalf. Intimate relationships are something that we all need. It is only gay people who are specifically asked to abstain by church policy, and that is where the harm comes in. The church encourages straight people to seek committed relationships. They are not treated equally.

All you’re doing now is asserting your unfounded belief (many on this thread have shown you how it is unfounded) without any justification. Stomp your feet all your want! LOL!

For the nth time: All single members are asked to abstain from sex until married, whether they "can" or "will" marry or not. The Church encourages people that "can" to marry, and those that "can't" to remin chaste.

Now if you want to justify your belief with actual policy (which you haven't provided) and a cogent argument (which you haven't come close to yet), we can have a conversation. Otherwise you're clearly spent.

[Gray]

There are two personal examples of loving discipline on the last page or two. And if you would read the manual, you will see that the Church’s approach is to discipline with love. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, the instructions, policies and procdures are there in black in white for all to see.

People, gay and straight, are responsible for their own relationships, healthy or otherwise. No Church policy can fix unhealthy relationships. Where does the Church take responsibility for anyone’s relationship, anyway? To expect that it should comes from an extremely unhealthy paradigm.

This is hilarious. You said in post #206: “It is harmful for gay people to remain celibate…” in reference to “a tremendous amount of harm that is being done to gay people” which you asserted in post #199 in connection with your assertion that the Church treats “them” differently in post #198. You’ve got to be able to follow your own argument. But since you responded in this way, you are asserting that celibacy (abstaining from sex outside of marriage, or an unmarried person remaining chaste) is harmful for any member, and the Church is to blame. I’m not going to get into an argument over the merits of the law of chastity.

All you’re doing now is asserting your unfounded belief (many on this thread have shown you how it is unfounded) without any justification. Stomp your feet all your want! LOL!

For the nth time: All single members are asked to abstain from sex until married, whether they "can" or "will" marry or not. The Church encourages people that "can" to marry, and those that "can't" to remin chaste.

Now if you want to justify your belief with actual policy (which you haven't provided) and a cogent argument (which you haven't come close to yet), we can have a conversation. Otherwise you're clearly spent.

 

Point A: yes, that's a legitimate challenge to the viewpoint I expressed

 

Point B: again, sidestepping the issue. The church encourages an unhealthy living situation for its gay members

 

Point C: Pointing out that celibacy is not healthy for gay people is not remotely saying that it is any less healthy for straight people. Marriage is good for straight and gay people alike. Abstaining for religious reasons is bad for the emotional well-being of human beings

 

Point D: It's been addressed already. 

[Gray]

All you’re doing now is asserting your unfounded belief (many on this thread have shown you how it is unfounded) without any justification. Stomp your feet all your want! LOL!

For the nth time: All single members are asked to abstain from sex until married, whether they "can" or "will" marry or not. The Church encourages people that "can" to marry, and those that "can't" to remin chaste.

 

 

It's not unfounded that the church's policy causes emotional harm to its gay members.  It is not because its gay members are different, it's because there are two standards, one for straight members and one for gay members. Straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry. Gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying. If this standard were applied to straight members, I'd expect the level of harm to be similar

[wenglund]

It's not unfounded that the church's policy causes emotional harm to its gay members.

 

You haven't substantiated a causal relationship, and have even gone so far as to adamantly ignore the plausibility that whatever emotional harm may occur, might be the result of cognitive distortions on the part of the gay members and false beliefs on the part of well-intended but misguided sympathizer like yourself. In other words, you fail to consider that the emotional harm may be caused by people rejecting the edifying wisdom and love of God and embracing instead the destructive inanity of the secular world.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry. Gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying.

 

Here, again, is the bamboozling secular falsehood which equates sex with love.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry. Gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying.

CFR -- there is no such policy.

 

I don'tt think any religious person will argue against romantic love being governed spiritual inclinations.

 

All members are encouraged to be charitable and have their relationshiops blessed by the influence of the Holy Spirit. All members are taught that eternal marrige is the order of heaven. All unmarried people are counseled to remain chaste. The Family: A Proclamation to the World is for everyone.

 

If you believe celibacy as the manifestation of chastity is unhealthy, we really have nothing moer to dicsuss.

[CV75]

Abstaining for religious reasons is bad for the emotional well-being of human beings.

So, after all you know about the Gospel, you really think that unmarried people are better off having sexual relationships than remining chaste! As they say, "Good luck with aaaaalll that..."

[seriously honestly]

It's not unfounded that the church's policy causes emotional harm to its gay members.  It is not because its gay members are different, it's because there are two standards, one for straight members and one for gay members. Straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry. Gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying. If this standard were applied to straight members, I'd expect the level of harm to be similar

In fairness to the arguement, there's one policy and it's applied to every member of their chruch. Members either abide by the policy or they don't, but it's incorrect to say they have two different policies/standards. 

[Bikeemikey]

He could always call Mormonism the great and abominable church of the devil... He's got a long way to go in my book!

[Gray]

Here, again, is the bamboozling secular falsehood which equates sex with love.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You brought up sex, not me

[Gray]

CFR -- there is no such policy.

 

I don'tt think any religious person will argue against romantic love being governed spiritual inclinations.

 

All members are encouraged to be charitable and have their relationshiops blessed by the influence of the Holy Spirit. All members are taught that eternal marrige is the order of heaven. All unmarried people are counseled to remain chaste. The Family: A Proclamation to the World is for everyone.

 

If you believe celibacy as the manifestation of chastity is unhealthy, we really have nothing moer to dicsuss.

 

The CFR was met long ago. I object to this vexatious request

[Gray]

So, after all you know about the Gospel, you really think that unmarried people are better off having sexual relationships than remining chaste! As they say, "Good luck with aaaaalll that..."

 

That's not what I said at all. If you'd respond to what I say rather than what you wish I'd said, we could have a better discussion. Gay people should do the same as anyone else. Fall in love and get legally married before having sex. 

[Gray]

In fairness to the arguement, there's one policy and it's applied to every member of their chruch. Members either abide by the policy or they don't, but it's incorrect to say they have two different policies/standards. 

 

Does the church encourage gay people to marry?

[CV75]

The CFR was met long ago. I object to this vexatious request

No, that CFR was about policies of harm, and what you provided didn't support your point. This CFR is for your post #229: “Straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry. Gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying.” CFR that straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry and that gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying.

I can’t imagine anyone, gay or straight, being encouraged to marry (that's marriage per "The Family: A Proclamation..." not same sex "marriage" as you would call it) who is not eligible or qualified to marry.

Edited March 14, 2014 by CV75

[saemo]

Yes, it is interesting to compare what the Pope actually says to how it is interpreted when it is reported.  While he is definitely less militant than previous Popes, he hasn't come out and said what lots of people think he has said.

 

One quote often left out of reporting on the Pope is when he was asked directly what his personal opinion was concerning the controversial moral teachings of Catholicism (contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc).  He said, "I am a child [son] of the Church!"  The Church is often called Holy Mother Church, because She watches over us, protects us, teaches us, and loves us.  Pope Francis was affirming his love, connection, and fidelity to Her.

 

He is a son of the Church, indeed!

 

Did you see that congress (both houses) sent him a letter inviting him to address a joint session?  As a Catholic, I'm tickled silly to think about the Pope talking to both the house and the senate, with most likely the president in attendance, too.

 

I didn't see that. Thanks for posting it. :-)

[seriously honestly]

Does the church encourage gay people to marry?

 

Does the church encourage male and female cousins to marry?  Does the church encourage step-parent and step-child to marry? Your question is designed to set up a false premise because you don't want to accept that there is only one policy and it's applied to everyone.

Edited March 14, 2014 by seriously honestly

[Gray]

Does the church encourage male and female cousins to marry?  Does the church encourage step-parent and step-child to marry? Your question is designed to set up a false premise because you don't want to accept that there is only one policy and it's applied to everyone.

 

I suspect if someone tried to tell you that only gay people should get married, your eyes would be opened to the double standard. Inequity is harder to see when it doesn't affect us or people we love. 

 

The usual tangents about incest that always seem to pop up notwithstanding. 

Edited March 14, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

No, that CFR was about policies of harm, and what you provided didn't support your point. This CFR is for your post #229: “Straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry. Gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying.” CFR that straight members are encouraged to find love and to marry and that gay members are discouraged from finding love and marrying.

I can’t imagine anyone, gay or straight, being encouraged to marry (that's marriage per "The Family: A Proclamation..." not same sex "marriage" as you would call it) who is not eligible or qualified to marry.

 

Asked and answered already. 

[seriously honestly]

I suspect if someone tried to tell you that only gay people should get married, your eyes would be opened to the double standard. Inequity is harder to see when it doesn't affect us or people we love. 

 

The usual tangents about incest that always seem to pop up notwithstanding. 

 

In a culture that has become increasingly indifferent to marriage, it wouldn't be as shocking to me as you would hope. If there was county I moved to, or a religious organization that I joined that determined straight individuals weren't allowed to marry, then so be it. Their rules, their laws.

 

Also, I have a gay uncle, gay cousin (female), and a gay brother in-law (albeit they're not LDS and have no intrest in marriage).

 

I should also add that I'm not LDS, and don't believe some eternal requirement of marriage in order to reisde in the highest kingdom with God.  My response to you was merely to point out that the LDS church doesn't have multiple standards for different groups of people. Just one that you can choose to abide by or not.

Edited March 14, 2014 by seriously honestly

[thesometimesaint]

I suspect if someone tried to tell you that only gay people should get married, your eyes would be opened to the double standard. Inequity is harder to see when it doesn't affect us or people we love. 

 

The usual tangents about incest that always seem to pop up notwithstanding. 

 

I think it is a more serious question than "The usual tangents". If marriage is open to all with informed consent. What would be the legal argument against incest?

[Calm]

. Inequity is harder to see when it doesn't affect us or people we love. 

 

Since no one has the ability to know all of the relationships others have, it seems to me rather arrogant to assume anyone holds their position because they haven't been able to experience up close and personal tragedies, whether for someone with SSA or something else.

It is is much easier to assume the only reason someone disagrees with one is because they are not as informed, not as experienced, not as compassionate, not as open minded, etc. as one is oneself....demonstrated of course by being a high level critical thinker with a remarkable level of insight and understanding for others.

[Stone holm]

I think it is a more serious question than "The usual tangents". If marriage is open to all with informed consent. What would be the legal argument against incest?

Genetics and capacity to consent.

[seriously honestly]

Genetics and capacity to consent.

Genetics aren't too much of a concern in as far as step-relations or adoptions go, and many states allow first cousin marriages (Vermont, for example).

Edited March 15, 2014 by seriously honestly

[Stone holm]

Genetics aren't too much of a concern in as far as step-relations or adoptions go, and many states allow first cousin marriages (Vermont, for example).

From Vermont aware of its rules, answer still stands. Informed consent is deemed impossible for incestuous situations even where there is no genetic issue if there is a parental role established. This of course is an irrelevant distraction.