Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[Ahab]

Okay, Gray, maybe you'd like to help California boy out by explaining what, if anything, is good about people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other. He hasn't told me anything good about that and I am now challenging you for a good answer.

So far I've explained that the fact that people enjoy doing it doesn't mean it is good, and the fact that straight people have sexual relations doesn't mean it's good for homosexuals to have sex with each other. And the fact that homosexuals can now be legally married to another homosexual of the same sex still doesn't mean it is good either.

I can also point out that any marriage between 2 people that can be improved should be improved otherwise it is inferior to a better form of marriage. Like how it would be better for an infertile married couple to be able to become fertile, even if it might take a miracle for them to become fertile.

So how about if we were to make a little list to illustrate what is involved in making it good for 2 people to have sexual relations with each other.

And for comparison's sake, let's split the list into 2 separate columns, with one column for same sex married couples and the other for couples of the opposite sex.

You can make the list yourself, just in case I might leave something out, and all I ask is that you come up with something which you think is good about sexual relations between people of the same sex, while also seeing if there is anything that could make having sexual relations better for those 2 people of the same sex who are having sexual relations, including having sexual relations with other people who are not the same sex.

Oh, and if you want to talk about love, please explain what you mean when you're talking about love, because some people have a perverted idea about what love really is.

[california boy]

Okay, Gray, maybe you'd like to help California boy out by explaining what, if anything, is good about people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other. He hasn't told me anything good about that and I am now challenging you for a good answer.

So far I've explained that the fact that people enjoy doing it doesn't mean it is good, and the fact that straight people have sexual relations doesn't mean it's good for homosexuals to have sex with each other. And the fact that homosexuals can now be legally married to another homosexual of the same sex still doesn't mean it is good either.

I can also point out that any marriage between 2 people that can be improved should be improved otherwise it is inferior to a better form of marriage. Like how it would be better for an infertile married couple to be able to become fertile, even if it might take a miracle for them to become fertile.

So how about if we were to make a little list to illustrate what is involved in making it good for 2 people to have sexual relations with each other.

And for comparison's sake, let's split the list into 2 separate columns, with one column for same sex married couples and the other for couples of the opposite sex.

You can make the list yourself, just in case I might leave something out, and all I ask is that you come up with something which you think is good about sexual relations between people of the same sex, while also seeing if there is anything that could make having sexual relations better for those 2 people of the same sex who are having sexual relations, including having sexual relations with other people who are not the same sex.

Oh, and if you want to talk about love, please explain what you mean when you're talking about love, because some people have a perverted idea about what love really is.

Actually I have answered your question 3 times now.  The problem you have is you don't want to consider that gay people are just like straight people except in whom they are attracted to.  If you can paint gay people as somehow being inferior in their relationships then in your own mind, it gives you permission to dismiss the importance of marriage for them.  You can pretend that their marriage is somehow based on a different criteria than "your" type of marriage.  This kind of marginalization is as old as prejudice itself.  It is the first rule on how to dehumanize those that are different than you.  Since you have missed my response three times, I will re quote it for you again.

 

I believe I clearly answered your question.  Sex between a gay couple within the bonds of marriage serves the EXACT same function as sex between a straight couple that is infertal.  No I don't think that the sole reason someone has sex is because it feels good.  That is a very shallow view of sex.  If it was just about "feeling good" I could be married to a woman.  If it was just about having sex, then finding someone to marry would be something anyone could probably do in an afternoon on Craigslist.

 

And I completely disagree with you.  A commited married relationship is much prefered over people just shacking up.  Quite frankly, I have no idea why you can make such a statement and still believe in the Law of Chastity.  Maybe you can tell me why a gay relationship is much better if they are just shacking up rather than committing to that relationship by marrying?  And why would it be better for a gay couple to shack up when they have adopted children?  Why do you think that a gay couple is any different other their orientation from a straight couple?  Because right now I just don't get your thinking.

 

While sexual relations are a part of marriage, it is not the most important part.  It is not even necessary in a marriage.  Sex is not what makes that marriage important.  I think it was Gray that asked if you or anyone else would be ok with gay marriage if the couple did not have any sexual relations at all in that marriage relationship.  You did not respond to the question.  You seem to want to make gay marriage about sex.  While that is usually a part of that marriage, it is not the reason people get married.  If this was only about sex, then why bother to get married at all?  Do you view your marriage that way?  Is the only reason why you got married is because then you could have sex?  Like I said, just because someone is gay does not mean that his reasons for marrying are any different than anyone else.  

 

All of this has no bearing at all on the discussion we are having anyway.  If you believe in the gospel, you also beieve that marriage is a very key part of the Plan of Salvation whether someone can have children or not.  The current church policy excludes gay couples from participating in that plan.  The church policy in the past excluded blacks and interracial couples from engaging in that plan.  THAT is the issue.  You believe the church should continue this policy even though there has been no revelation from God to institute that plan.  I disagree with you.  I think God wants all of his children to be able to have the blessings of eternal marriage.  I think that God has declared that marriage is an important part of our experience while here on earth.  I think that the scriptures condemn celibacy over marriage.  You use the few scriptures in the Bible that condemn homosexuality even though all of those scriptures are talking about homosexual relationships outside of marriage since no gay marriage was being performed when those scriptures were written.  Yet you also know that straight sexual relationships outside of marriage are also condemned in all of the scriptures.  You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it certainly does not have scriptural support nor does it have a revelation from God to support it.  And just like the priesthood ban, people have to distort the scriptures to make them try and support their view.

 

 

[Ahab]

Actually I have answered your question 3 times now. The problem you have is you don't want to consider that gay people are just like straight people except in whom they are attracted to. If you can paint gay people as somehow being inferior in their relationships then in your own mind, it gives you permission to dismiss the importance of marriage for them. You can pretend that their marriage is somehow based on a different criteria than "your" type of marriage. This kind of marginalization is as old as prejudice itself. It is the first rule on how to dehumanize those that are different than you. Since you have missed my response three times, I will re quote it for you again.

Nope, you're still not doing it.

Just tell me one thing that is good, if there is anything good, about sexual relations between people of the same sex, even if or when they are married.

And if you get the idea to talk about how it's all about love, then explain or describe what it is that makes you think that is love.

[california boy]

 

 

 

 

if I can decipher what you're trying to say here, they are only counseled in the ways of righteousness and righteousness never was unhappiness once the blessings are fully understood, which is the purpose for spiritual counsel.

 

 

I actually think a lot about this concept.  The scriptures tell us that wickedness never was happiness.  It is one of the scriptures that personally confirm to me that I am on the right path that God wants me to follow.    I have never felt more happy, more complete, and more at peace with myself and God since I have chosen to be more honest in the way I live my life.  I have not regretted a single day since coming out.  It is like my life has exploded with a deep joy and peace. 

 

I am sure you have had similar feelings when you decided to finally live your life as a heterosexual.

[Ahab]

I actually think a lot about this concept. The scriptures tell us that wickedness never was happiness. It is one of the scriptures that personally confirm to me that I am on the right path that God wants me to follow. I have never felt more happy, more complete, and more at peace with myself and God since I have chosen to be more honest in the way I live my life. I have not regretted a single day since coming out. It is like my life has exploded with a deep joy and peace.

I am sure you have had similar feelings when you decided to finally live your life as a heterosexual.

This is more the type of answer I was asking you for earlier, but you're still not describing or explaining what or how or why you think sexual relations with someone of the same sex is a good thing. It could still conceivably be a thing that is not good and you just enjoy doing it anyway. It may also be helping you to know that your homosexuality is more generally accepted in society, but that also still doesn't mean it is a good thing. And then there's the fact that it would be better if you could have children with your married partner, biologically, which you can't do with someone of the same sex, so that's not good or at least not as good as if you could, which you could if your married partner was of the opposite sex, if not now at least after the resurrection when our bodies will be perfected.

Men aren't ever going to get wombs, though, or eggs, so you'll still be out of luck even then.

[Tacenda]

Nope, you're still not doing it.

Just tell me one thing that is good, if there is anything good, about sexual relations between people of the same sex, even if or when they are married.

And if you get the idea to talk about how it's all about love, then explain or describe what it is that makes you think that is love.

Tell me how someone can have sex without trying to become pregnant with their wife, if that's the reason to marry heterosexually, to have children and populate the earth. Tell me how that is good, to have sex without trying to become pregnant. Why is it necessary?

[Ahab]

Tell me how someone can have sex without trying to become pregnant with their wife, if that's the reason to marry heterosexually, to have children and populate the earth. Tell me how that is good, to have sex without trying to become pregnant. Why is it necessary?

Your post looks a little garbled to me. Are you asking how and why and when it is good to have children?

Our Father has laid out the good, and best, way to do it.

1. Find someone you can conceivably have children with, if not in this life then in the next life, or phase of life. That means men for women, and women for men, because that's what it takes, biologically.

2. Marry that person before you have sexual relations with that person, just in case the person you have sexual relations with just wants to have sexual relations with you but not be with you, and potentially your children, forever. Meaning you don't want to pick someone who plans to leave you alone, voluntarily.

3. Commence having children, or at least practice doing what it takes while feeling like you both would be happily surprised if you had a child sooner than you expected.

It's good to have children, as long as it's with the right kind of person. The only way to mess it up is to not follow our Father's plan.

[CV75]

I actually think a lot about this concept.  The scriptures tell us that wickedness never was happiness.  It is one of the scriptures that personally confirm to me that I am on the right path that God wants me to follow.    I have never felt more happy, more complete, and more at peace with myself and God since I have chosen to be more honest in the way I live my life.  I have not regretted a single day since coming out.  It is like my life has exploded with a deep joy and peace.

This is still no basis for justifying the Church adopting a SS“M” covenant, or for condemning it for not adopting such a thing. As much as you try to express your level of happiness, it isn’t convincing me a) that you are really all that happy (not that it matters to your arguments); b) that you are at all right about the Church’s position; and c) that there are not temple-married couples (each spouse with SSA) in our stake that are happily raising families together.

 

I am sure you have had similar feelings when you decided to finally live your life as a heterosexual.

LOL--whatever it is you think I've felt (and how, why and when you think I've felt it), is even more irrelevant to the above than your feelings!

Edited May 24, 2014 by CV75

[cdowis]

Marriage is not about intimate relations, although it is an important aspect of it.  It is about procreation and the raising of a family.  In some cases there is no opportunity to have children but that still legitimizes the institution of marriage, imperfect as it may be.  And that is why it is the basic structure of society.

 

Now, judges have decided that SSM is legitimate, but it is based on a misguided philosophy, which changes with every wind and shifting sands.  But the church has no need to follow the wisdom of man in its doctrines, and those who try to move the church with phony arguments are also misguided in their efforts.

 

There are those who disagree with me, obviously, but I think I can stand before the Lord in the last day, and will be justified in supporting the church leaders in thier decision.  I think the critics of their church leaders may be found as "accusers of the brethren".

[Ahab]

Marriage is not about intimate relations, although it is an important aspect of it. It is about procreation and the raising of a family.

That's not quite right and a little too simplistic in my view. Marriage is all about being united with someone, whether it's for good ir evil. To tey to get that point across I often compare marriage of 2 people to marriage of 2 parts in plumbing, or a marriage line in construction where 2 objects come together. That's what the word marriage actually refers to, and with that understood it should now be apparent that 2 homosexuals can logistically get married as well as 2 heterosexuals, whether or not it's legally permissible and whether or not it's good or evil.

And as far as legality goes, or what is allowable, I'm thinking more and more that it's okay that SSM is legal. That doesn't mean I think it is good, though, just as I also don't think pornography is good, or something people should do. I'd just rather that people say No and not do something that isn't good, even if it is legal.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Ahab

[Tacenda]

Your post looks a little garbled to me. Are you asking how and why and when it is good to have children?

Our Father has laid out the good, and best, way to do it.

1. Find someone you can conceivably have children with, if not in this life then in the next life, or phase of life. That means men for women, and women for men, because that's what it takes, biologically.

2. Marry that person before you have sexual relations with that person, just in case the person you have sexual relations with just wants to have sexual relations with you but not be with you, and potentially your children, forever. Meaning you don't want to pick someone who plans to leave you alone, voluntarily.

3. Commence having children, or at least practice doing what it takes while feeling like you both would be happily surprised if you had a child sooner than you expected.

It's good to have children, as long as it's with the right kind of person. The only way to mess it up is to not follow our Father's plan.

You seem to be saying SSM with sex isn't good, and it's because they can't get pregnant. By chance, what if we're only suppose to have sex when procreating. Then most heterosexual married couples should only have sex when trying to procreate, since that's what it's for, not for enjoyment. Since that's what is being put on SSM folks.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[california boy]

This is more the type of answer I was asking you for earlier, but you're still not describing or explaining what or how or why you think sexual relations with someone of the same sex is a good thing. It could still conceivably be a thing that is not good and you just enjoy doing it anyway. It may also be helping you to know that your homosexuality is more generally accepted in society, but that also still doesn't mean it is a good thing. And then there's the fact that it would be better if you could have children with your married partner, biologically, which you can't do with someone of the same sex, so that's not good or at least not as good as if you could, which you could if your married partner was of the opposite sex, if not now at least after the resurrection when our bodies will be perfected.

Men aren't ever going to get wombs, though, or eggs, so you'll still be out of luck even then.

 

Well you seem to have an answer in your own head that you want me to repeat.  You are frustrated because I can't see in your head  the answer you seek.  Just like heterosexual couples, there are multiple reasons why sexual relationships enhance any marriage.  So here is one of my answers inside my head.

 

It is not good for man to be alone.  Finding an person to share each others burdens in sickness and in health, richer or poorer gives one experience and a way to not be alone in this life.  Sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage for a gay couple enhances and strengthens those relationships and emotional ties between them.

[california boy]

This is still no basis for justifying the Church adopting a SS“M” covenant, or for condemning it for not adopting such a thing. As much as you try to express your level of happiness, it isn’t convincing me a) that you are really all that happy (not that it matters to your arguments); b) that you are at all right about the Church’s position; and c) that there are not temple-married couples (each spouse with SSA) in our stake that are happily raising families together.

 

LOL--whatever it is you think I've felt (and how, why and when you think I've felt it), is even more irrelevant to the above than your feelings!

I was married to a woman for 26 years.  I raised children.  It is not like I haven't tried.  If I was more happy pretending to be straight why wouldn't I have gone back to that way of life?  

 

Find a single post I have made where I am trying to justify or condemn the churches position on SSM or adoption.  I have not made such a case.  In fact, I have repeatedly said, I really don't care what the churches policy is concerning gay marriage or now that you bring it up gay adoption.  My post are simply about the LACK of any revelational support or scriptural support for gay marriage.  Church leaders have instituted yet another policy denying eternal marriage to another group without no revelation from God.  While there is scriptural support for gay sex outside of marriage being against Gods will, there is no scriptural support that it is a sin within the bonds of marriage.  

 

Sure there are opposite sex gay couples that have married.  I was one of them.  I wish them well.  If that is the type of relationship they seek and it works for them. good.  But for most gay members, it is not an option.  Many gay members leave the church.  A few try to stay celibate.  A few try entering into a marriage with an opposite sex person.  What does that prove?  Nothing.  It does not give the church the revelation it needs on this subject.

 

And to quote a poster on this board

 

LOL--whatever it is you think I've felt (and how, why and when you think I've felt it), is even more irrelevant to the above than your feelings!

 

 

How could you possible know how I feel and what happiness I enjoy in my life to make such a post.

Edited May 24, 2014 by california boy

[california boy]

I was married to a woman for 26 years.  I raised children.  It is not like I haven't tried.  If I was more happy pretending to be straight why wouldn't I have gone back to that way of life?  

 

Find a single post I have made where I am trying to justify or condemn the churches position on SSM or adoption.  I have not made such a case.  In fact, I have repeatedly said, I really don't care what the churches policy is concerning gay marriage or now that you bring it up gay adoption.  My post are simply about the LACK of any revelational support or scriptural support for gay marriage.  Church leaders have instituted yet another policy denying eternal marriage to another group without no revelation from God.  While there is scriptural support for gay sex outside of marriage being against Gods will, there is no scriptural support that it is a sin within the bonds of marriage.  

 

Sure there are opposite sex gay couples that have married.  I was one of them.  I wish them well.  If that is the type of relationship they seek and it works for them. good.  But for most gay members, it is not an option.  Many gay members leave the church.  A few try to stay celibate.  A few try entering into a marriage with an opposite sex person.  What does that prove?  Nothing.  It does not give the church the revelation it needs on this subject.

 

And finally to quote someone on this board

 

LOL--whatever it is you think I've felt (and how, why and when you think I've felt it), is even more irrelevant to the above than your feelings!

 

 

O wait, that was you.  How could you possible know how I feel to make such a post.

[Buzzard]

Well you seem to have an answer in your own head that you want me to repeat.  You are frustrated because I can't see in your head  the answer you seek.  Just like heterosexual couples, there are multiple reasons why sexual relationships enhance any marriage.  So here is one of my answers inside my head.

 

It is not good for man to be alone.  Finding an person to share each others burdens in sickness and in health, richer or poorer gives one experience and a way to not be alone in this life.  Sexual relationships within the bonds of marriage for a gay couple enhances and strengthens those relationships and emotional ties between them.

Interesting. If you don't mind a bit of TMI, in 2008 I had  major abdominal surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. Since that date over six years ago, nothing works "down there". No function, no sensation, dead as a doornail. You might say that we had 28 years where a physical relationship was part of the deal, and you would be right. But during one of the most trying periods of our marriage, we have supported each other, helped each other, and nursed each other back to health without "relations" And my brain and eyes still work just fine. But we have discovered that marriage is a covenantal relationship much more than a sexual one.

[california boy]

Marriage is not about intimate relations, although it is an important aspect of it.  It is about procreation and the raising of a family.  In some cases there is no opportunity to have children but that still legitimizes the institution of marriage, imperfect as it may be.  And that is why it is the basic structure of society.

 

Now, judges have decided that SSM is legitimate, but it is based on a misguided philosophy, which changes with every wind and shifting sands.  But the church has no need to follow the wisdom of man in its doctrines, and those who try to move the church with phony arguments are also misguided in their efforts.

 

There are those who disagree with me, obviously, but I think I can stand before the Lord in the last day, and will be justified in supporting the church leaders in thier decision.  I think the critics of their church leaders may be found as "accusers of the brethren".

 

 

Interesting. If you don't mind a bit of TMI, in 2008 I had  major abdominal surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. Since that date over six years ago, nothing works "down there". No function, no sensation, dead as a doornail. You might say that we had 28 years where a physical relationship was part of the deal, and you would be right. But during one of the most trying periods of our marriage, we have supported each other, helped each other, and nursed each other back to health without "relations" And my brain and eyes still work just fine. But we have discovered that marriage is a covenantal relationship much more than a sexual one.

 

Sorry to hear about your medical complications.  I hope the cancer is gone forever.  You are lucky to have a wife there for you to share this burden.  I am sure that you thank God that you found love and married rather than have to deal with this all alone.  Sharing our lives with someone we love is very much a part of human nature.  It has been since the beginning of time.  

 

I actually have a gay friend staying with us at the moment.  He has been with his partner for 26 years. His partner has a genetic mental disorder that he has suffered with all of his life but with medication has not effected their relationship until just recently.  About 5 years ago, the condition worsened.  As a result of that condition, the two have not had sexual relationships for some time.  It has now effected their relationship far more than just not being able to have sexual relations.  My friend has become the caretaker in the relationship.  His partners brothers father and uncle all suffer from the same condition.  It seems that disease has only passed on to the male members of his family.  His two sisters are not effected.  My friend is relatively young, in his early 50's.  He is committed in the relationship, and has no plans of leaving it.  He may not be Mormon, but I think God will reward him for his love and compassion.  It certainly is not a burden I would wish to carry.

[cdowis]

That's not quite right and a little too simplistic in my view. Marriage is all about being united with someone, whether it's for good ir evil. To tey to get that point across I often compare marriage of 2 people to marriage of 2 parts in plumbing, or a marriage line in construction where 2 objects come together. That's what the word marriage actually refers to, and with that understood it should now be apparent that 2 homosexuals can logistically get married as well as 2 heterosexuals, whether or not it's legally permissible and whether or not it's good or evil.

And as far as legality goes, or what is allowable, I'm thinking more and more that it's okay that SSM is legal. That doesn't mean I think it is good, though, just as I also don't think pornography is good, or something people should do. I'd just rather that people say No and not do something that isn't good, even if it is legal.

Since the courts and the public now recognize SSM, that is now a moot issue.

 

 But back to our discussion.

 

The position of the church is that SSM is not recognized by the Lord, and is based on basic immoral behaviour ==>> what I would characterize as sexual perversion as found in the city of Sodom, which was destroyed by divine wrath.

 

SSM will not continue after mortality, and those who participate in it will suffer the consequences and judgement of God, regardless of all the clever analogies and arguments.

Edited May 24, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Since the courts and the public now recognize SSM, that is now a moot issue.

But back to our discussion.

The position of the church is that SSM is not recognized by the Lord, and is based on basic immoral behaviour ==>> what I would characterize as sexual perversion as found in the city of Sodom, which was destroyed by divine wrath.

SSM will not continue after mortality, and those who participate in it will suffer the consequences and judgement of God, regardless of all the clever analogies and arguments.

I think that scripture, or scriptures had more to do with how they were doing it, more than anything. Just like in Moses, right before they cross the Red Sea. It was gluttonous behaviour, like an orgy, lack of worship for God, etc.

Maybe I'm grasping, but there just isn't enough information to make decisions that affect so many out there.

My short hair is wrong in the bible, women giving prayers in public is wrong...even in GC, the shame! But as you well know, scripture is taken out of context all the time, I suggest everyone read the NT, with new eyes, especially John...I hear there's good stuff in there.

ETA: A thought occurred to me. It sounds like there was homosexuality from the beginning of time, when you read the bible. I think these men that wrote down things, in the bible, might just be like those on this board, who vehemently disagree. But we don't get much from the Lord himself. Just like incest in the beginning, it was needed to populate with, if we are going to believe the Adam and Eve version. But then evolved to being wrong. What if SSA can evolve to being right?

Edited May 24, 2014 by Tacenda

[CV75]

I was married to a woman for 26 years.  I raised children.  It is not like I haven't tried.  If I was more happy pretending to be straight why wouldn't I have gone back to that way of life?

You don’t seem to understand that not all people with SSA who are married in the LDS temple and raise families are pretending to be straight (with each other, at least). Let’s not get into the psychology of your experience with pretense. Their primary self-identity is not their sexuality but their identity as obedient children of God. They focus on the covenants, which is what I’m doing with my posts.

 

 

I have repeatedly said, I really don't care what the churches policy is concerning gay marriage or now that you bring it up gay adoption.  My post are simply about the LACK of any revelational support or scriptural support for gay marriage.

And my posts are generally about the ABUNDANCE of “revelational support or scriptural support for” revealed marriage, which means that same-sex marriage is an example of how some would pervert the way of the Lord.

 

Sure there are opposite sex gay couples that have married.  I was one of them.  I wish them well.  If that is the type of relationship they seek and it works for them. good.  But for most gay members, it is not an option.  Many gay members leave the church.  A few try to stay celibate.  A few try entering into a marriage with an opposite sex person.  What does that prove?  Nothing.  It does not give the church the revelation it needs on this subject.

Your experience and your feelings really have nothing to do with the actual covenant that God established; they are your responses to it. Like the “moral compass” analogy they have nothing to do with the actual direction God is calling us to follow. This is not to say your experiences and feelings aren’t important to you or those you know, but likewise, they have nothing to do with either the perceived LACK or actual ABUNDANCE of third party revelation.

 

 

How could you possible know how I feel and what happiness I enjoy in my life to make such a post.

This is the funniest of all, and a key indicator of the confusion you've struggled with in defending your position: here you were claiming knowledge of how I felt; I said you can’t know that (and that it doesn’t matter any more than your feelings to the topic at hand); and you complain that I’m doing the same to you! To be perfectly clear: I do not how you feel and what happiness you enjoy in your life, and I don’t think your feelings and happiness are relevant to this discussion.

 

Maybe I can rephrase (in italics) my earlier comment “As much as you try to express your level of happiness, it isn’t convincing me a) that you are really all that happy (not that it matters to your arguments); b) that you are at all right about there being a “LACK of any revelational support or scriptural support for gay marriage”; and c) that there are not temple-married couples (each spouse with SSA) in our stake that are happily raising families together.

[Ahab]

You seem to be saying SSM with sex isn't good, and it's because they can't get pregnant.

Close, if you as I do consider "marriage" as the act of having sexual relations with another person, but it's only one of the reasons why that act isn't good between people of the same sex. Another reason I can see for why it isn't good is because it usually replaces marriage or sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex, and that then limits what those 2 of the same sex can accomplish together. One possible way to fix that though would be to include someone of each sex in a marriage while expanding the marriage to 3 instead of only 2 people, so that a married triple (instead of just couple) could have their own children. But even when 2 women share a man, which our Lord sometimes permits (so it's not a sin then), it would not be as good as when only 2 people are in a marriage/sexual relationship with each other, because someone will feel like a third wheel, not being able to connect in the same way at the same time with their marriage partner.

By chance, what if we're only suppose to have sex when procreating. Then most heterosexual married couples should only have sex when trying to procreate, since that's what it's for, not for enjoyment. Since that's what is being put on SSM folks.

I don't believe sexual relations between 2 people is only about having children together, but I do believe it should at least be a possibility. Even if 2 people can't have children together during mortality they should at least have the possibility of having children in heaven, aftet resurrection, otherwise they would never be able to have children together, and that just wouldn't be good or as good as being able to have children together.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Yes, much more sense to me that time.

[Tacenda]

Close, if you as I do consider "marriage" as the act of having sexual relations with another person, but it's only one of the reasons why that act isn't good between people of the same sex. Another reason I can see for why it isn't good is because it usually replaces marriage or sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex, and that then limits what those 2 of the same sex can accomplish together. One possible way to fix that though would be to include someone of each sex in a marriage while expanding the marriage to 3 instead of only 2 people, so that a married triple (instead of just couple) could have their own children. But even when 2 women share a man, which our Lord sometimes permits (so it's not a sin then), it would not be as good as when only 2 people are in a marriage/sexual relationship with each other, because someone will feel like a third wheel, not being able to connect in the same way at the same time with their marriage partner.

 

I hate when people bold what I say and leave out some of it, but I'm going to have to do it here.  What you said here is a good point.  So God sometimes permits polygamy but at other times condemns it?  Of course you'd have to provide scripture other than Levirate which doesn't hold water btw, to prove he ever commanded polygamy.  Maybe it works the same with SSA unions?   

[cdowis]

I hate when people bold what I say and leave out some of it, but I'm going to have to do it here.  What you said here is a good point.  So God sometimes permits polygamy but at other times condemns it?  Of course you'd have to provide scripture other than Levirate which doesn't hold water btw, to prove he ever commanded polygamy.  Maybe it works the same with SSA unions?   

 

Perhaps the Ten Commandments will be reduced to five,tithing will change to 7%,  SSA is the "new morality", so we could now allow casual sex or sex among good friends using birth control measures.

 

Just curious, does SSA allow marriage among close consenting relatives, such as father son, mother daughter, etc.  If not, why?

 

I suppose that, for some individuals, the boundaries are wide open, as long as it is "cool" and legal.

Edited May 24, 2014 by cdowis

[Ahab]

I hate when people bold what I say and leave out some of it, but I'm going to have to do it here. What you said here is a good point. So God sometimes permits polygamy but at other times condemns it? Of course you'd have to provide scripture other than Levirate which doesn't hold water btw, to prove he ever commanded polygamy. Maybe it works the same with SSA unions?

You can find your own references to show God hasn't always condemned a man's decision to have more than one wife, or a wife's decision to allow her husband to have another wife in addition to her. D&C 131 would be a good place for you to start looking, and you can check that with the OT.

Still, though my point was even when our Lord allows it and does not condider it to be a sin the marriages are still not as good as they would be if the husband and wife didn't share themselves with anyone besides each other, because they can grow closer to each other that way without feeling at times that one of them is a third wheel. I don't know if you've ever tried it before but it can feel that way sometimes when you can't do something with a man because another woman is doing that with her, or vice versa with another woman. It just works out better for each man and woman to only have each other, even when God allows a little more sharing between husbands and wives.

And let's get one thing straight. There is nothing at all wrong with SSA. It's just best when a man has a woman, and a woman has a man, otherwise a same sex couple can't enjoy as much in a marriage as they could if they had an opposite sex partner. And that's what makes SSM an inferior form of marriage, with the 2 people involved consenting to deprive the other of more that they could be enjoying with an opposite sex partner.

[Tacenda]

Perhaps the Ten Commandments will be reduced to five,tithing will change to 7%, SSA is the "new morality", so we could now allow casual sex or sex among good friends using birth control measures.

Just curious, does SSA allow marriage among close consenting relatives, such as father son, mother daughter, etc. If not, why?

I suppose that, for some individuals, the boundaries are wide open, as long as it is "cool" and legal.

Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill...wink, wink.

[Tacenda]

And let's get one thing straight. There is nothing at all wrong with SSA. It's just best when a man has a woman, and a woman has a man, otherwise a same sex couple can't enjoy as much in a marriage as they could if they had an opposite sex partner. And that's what makes SSM an inferior form of marriage, with the 2 people involved consenting to deprive the other of more that they could be enjoying with an opposite sex partner.

This is wrong on so many levels. What more can they share, with someone they haven't fallen in love with? They can still raise children, maybe adopt the many that need a family. Edited May 24, 2014 by Tacenda