Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[CV75]

A non-excepting environment would be any where same-sex relationships are not approved of

[california boy]

Thank goodness for that!  Does this mean, at least for the time being, that I'll be spared the "spiritual ministrations and burning in the bosom [as well as elsewhere]" administered by your Ultra-Mega-XML-7000 Flamethrower?

 

P.S.: And for the record, yes, I can fully understand (at least, as much as anyone who's not gay) why someone who is gay might believe, in good conscience and good faith, that there's more fulfillment (and other good things) to be found outside the Church of Jesus Christ and its teachings than within them. But again, I also think that perspective comes from believing that this second act is as good as it gets.

[wenglund]

I don't think it is appropriate though to equate gays who may simply have felt sexual attraction to their own gender and tried their best to control those impulses and in many cases succeeded to those who have actually sinned.

[Gray]

You mean "non-accepting," right? And you're just repeating what you've said before, when I asked you to discuss the actual policies.

 

In the Church, same-sex relationships are approved and even encouraged in the quorums, scouting, activity girls, relief society, family units according to the family proclamation... I could go on and on.

[Gray]

Adulterers aren't so happy in the Church either. So, by your "reasoning" the Church is wrong there also?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gray]

Who said anything about rejecting someones innermost feelings?  If you read church policy regarding this issue, you will find that it never rejects a persons inner most feelings, and neither would I.

[Gray]

You are equating love with sex.

[Gray]

A society that becomes accepting (i.e embraces and celebrates and promotes) deleterious sexual relations, as opposed to tolerating and not disallowing them, is a society that has lost its mind, and with all the best of their hearts intents, will end up making things worse for all parties.

 

Is it any wonder that AIDs and STD's have spiked in the last decade, while marriage and birth rates have declined?

 

People may feel that they appreciate an indulgent society that is accepting of their sexual perversions, but tend to stop feeling the love when they end up sick and dying from their perversions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm not willing to sacrfice any more children to the false idol of the anti-gay agenda. There have been too many dead children over this already.

[wenglund]

It seems he [the Pope] is mulling over Same Sex Unions.

 

While SSM is somewhat different from Civil Unions, both constitute a formal endorsement of homosexual relationships. I wonder if the Pope understands this, and if so, I wonder how Catholics may think about the Pope indirectly endorsing homosexuality?

 

I realize that there is a sizable Hispanic population within the Catholic church, and that Hispanics tend to be accepting of homosexuality, and so the Popes mulling may not be off-putting to all Catholics, or even most of them. But, I am curious how the Catholics posting to this board think about it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

If you reject someone's relationship or desired relationship as categorically invalid, then you are rejecting their feelings.

 

Careful there. We reject all sexual relationships outside of marriage between one man and one woman while in mortality.

[thesometimesaint]

While SSM is somewhat different from Civil Unions, both constitute a formal endorsement of homosexual relationships. I wonder if the Pope understands this, and if so, I wonder how Catholics may think about the Pope indirectly endorsing homosexuality?

 

I realize that there is a sizable Hispanic population within the Catholic church, and that Hispanics tend to be accepting of homosexuality, and so the Popes mulling may not be off-putting to all Catholics, or even most of them. But, I am curious how the Catholics posting to this board think about it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Not necessarily. The Pope talked about financial obligations, hospital visitations and a host of other nonsexual unions. The same things the LDS leadership talks about.

Edited March 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

Careful there. We reject all sexual relationships outside of marriage between one man and one woman while in mortality.

 

I think that's a caricature of the church's position. For example, the church encourages young unmarried couples to marry. It doesn't negate their relationships

Edited March 7, 2014 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

I think that's a caricature of the church's position. For example, the church encourages young unmarried couples to marry. It doesn't negate their relationships

 

What it doesn't do is encourage them to have sex before they are married. In fact such sexual relations can lead to Church Discipline.

[wenglund]

I'm not willing to sacrfice any more children to the false idol of the anti-gay agenda. There have been too many dead children over this already.

 

This is another brazen falsehood of this generation. It is absurd to believe that children are killing themselves because rational people don't want to bastardize the definition of marriage in a way unheard of throughout the annuls of human history, nor is it because rational people don't wish to promote deleterious sexual perversion. Rather, the children are killing themselves because they have abnormal mental and emotional problems that are, in part,, exacerbated by a pop culture that inanely presumes it may cure mental and emotional illness by indulging deleterious behaviors rather than addressing the core cognitive distortions causing the symptoms of mental and emotional distress to begin with. 

 

In short, the thinking of our pop culture is well intended but sick and twisted. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[Gray]

What it doesn't do is encourage them to have sex before they are married. In fact such sexual relations can lead to Church Discipline.

 

I wouldn't encourage anyone to do that either. 

[Gray]

This is another brazen falsehood of this generation. It is absurd to believe that children are killing themselves because rational people don't want to bastardize the definition of marriage in a way unheard of throughout the annuls of human history, nor is it because rational people don't wish to promote deleterious sexual perversion. Rather, the children are killing themselves because they have abnormal mental and emotional problems that are, in part,, exacerbated by a pop culture that inanely presumes it may cure mental and emotional illness by indulging deleterious behaviors rather than addressing the core cognitive distortions causing the symptoms of mental and emotional distress to begin with. 

 

In short, the thinking of our pop culture is well intended but sick and twisted. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

 

It's a fact that this is happening (minus your loaded/partisan description of the issue). As TSS has stated so eloquently, we get to have our own opinions, but not our own facts. It has nothing to do with gay children being defective. It has everything to do with how their parents and peers treat this issue. 

[wenglund]

Not necessarily. The Pope talked about financial obligations, hospital visitations and a host of other nonsexual unions. The same things the LDS leadership talks about.

 

I don't know that you are correct, but nevertheless there is a big difference between allowing hospital visitations and formally sanctioning homosexual relationships through civil unions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gray]

I don't know that you are correct, but nevertheless there is a big difference between allowing hospital visitations and formally sanctioning homosexual relationships through civil unions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm pretty sure you don't have to attend any of these ceremonies if you personally disapprove.  

[Kenngo1969]

Well I obviously can't speak for all ex-gay Mormons, but i prayerfully considered the impact of my decision on the next life as well.  I just could not get excited about spending eternity with a woman.  So it seemed pointless to be celibate and even more important to me, to abandon any chance of sharing my life with someone on earth on the unwanted promise of spending eternity married to a woman.  I continue to work towards being more Christ=-ike in my life and put my trust in God.  Where I will end up I am sure will be where I deserve to be.  Maybe that is the Telestial kingdom, who knows.  And if it is the Telestial kingdom, then I will continue to be as Christ-like as I can be.  And the upside is, I won't be the only gay in the village.

I know at least one of the brethren has said that same-sex attraction won't exist after the resurrection, but I don't know of any official pronouncement from the Prophet or from the Fifteen on the subject.  I don't know what will happen then.  I don't know whether I'll meet the future "Mrs. Go1969" on this side of the veil or on the other side of the veil.  I do know that whatever happens, we will retain our agency: as important as I believe the commandments to husband and wife to "become one flesh" and to "multiply and replenish the earth" are, God isn't going to fulfill them or to allow others to attempt to fulfill them by abridging anybody's agency.  Perhaps the one lesson my long and tortured (sick and twisted? ) social life has taught me that perhaps I'll take with me to my grave is that you can't manufacture chemistry: if it ain't there, it ain't there.  I could obsess about what's gonna happen in the afterlife: will there be "slim pickings"?  Given how hard it has been to persuade anybody on this side of the veil to explore the possibility of an "LTR" with me, how much "convincing" will it take on the other side of the veil?  Is the whole thing simply gonna be one loooong stake singles dance, where almost everybody else brought a date, and the rest of us are simply desperate?  That doesn't sound like my ideal version of Eternity (or at least, of Eternity's beginning) either.  I don't know how God's gonna work it out, but I don't think He's gonna have to apologize to any of us: "Sorry ... I know you were hoping for better, but this is the best I could do."  And I don't think we're going to say to Him, "You know what?  If this is the best you can do, thanks, but no thanks: eternal 'ministering angelhood' will be fine."

Edited March 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know that you are correct, but nevertheless there is a big difference between allowing hospital visitations and formally sanctioning homosexual relationships through civil unions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/

[wenglund]

It's a fact that this is happening (minus your loaded/partisan description of the issue). As TSS has stated so eloquently, we get to have our own opinions, but not our own facts. It has nothing to do with gay children being defective. It has everything to do with how their parents and peers treat this issue. 

 

I don't know who TSS is (perhaps you meant TSM), but you clearly haven't a clue about the fact-based causes of mental and emotional illness and suicide or effective treatment of the same. Here is a fact for you to summarily ignore: as intolerance for homosexuality has drastically declined, homosexual suicides have gone up. Indulging sexual perversion hasn't improved matters, but made things worse. While very well intended, the supposed cure of pop culture indulgence has inadvertently spreed the disease. Please, for the love of God, stop killing the children with your asinine kindness.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/

 

My tentative doubts were in relation to the LDS Church publicly favoring legislation on homosexual "financial obligations" and "hospital visitations," and not the Popes consideration of Civil Unions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'm pretty sure you don't have to attend any of these ceremonies if you personally disapprove.

 

Attendance isn't the issue. It is society not only relaxing its morals, but formally and inanely encouraging perverse sexual behaviors like sodomy.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

My tentative doubts were in relation to the LDS Church publicly favoring legislation on homosexual "financial obligations" and "hospital visitations," and not the Popes consideration of Civil Unions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The Church has come out in favor of legislation respecting the financial obligations, and hospital visitation, along with a host of other issues, concerning gays.

 

The Pope and the LDS leaders are both still again SSM.

[thesometimesaint]

Attendance isn't the issue. It is society not only relaxing its morals, but formally and inanely encouraging perverse sexual behaviors like sodomy.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom