DJBrown Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 DJBrown, respectfully, I have to ask if you know any same-sex families. The ones I know are great examples of what families should be. These same-sex parents love and sacrifice for their children. Their example encourages me to strengthen my own heterosexual marriage. Just as with heterosexual adoptive couples I know, same-sex adoptive couples can do everything for their children with the one exception of providing dna. In short, I have seen the fruit of their marriage and it is very good. If you have differing experiences please do share. I'd be interested to understand why yours is so different from mine. Yes. I know multiple same-sex couples who have children. And they are generally law-abiding citizens who are for the most part good neighbors. Some of my closest friends in graduate school were gay. But there is a broader perspective that we have not seen yet. And I would suggest that you are seeing only the very short-term "fruit." From a purely public health perspective, there is nothing more dangerous to humanity than homosexual society- if practiced uniformly, it would result in extinction of all humans on earth in just one generation. Compare that to obesity or smoking or breast cancer. I also believe there is nothing more corrosive to the idea and legacy of families- speaking primarily from an eternal perspective. The family is the central context of God's plan for His children. The process of bringing God's spirit children to earth is dependent upon the physical relationship between men and women. Same-sex families turn God's plan on it's head. The acceptance of this type of family changes how men and women, boys and girls see the family, and inevitably God and His plan. Too many people believe (without knowing it) that society is inherently self-sustaining- that civilization can endure anything. And I think that is naive. Same sex marriage is the ultimate or extreme version of making black things white and up down. It turns the eternal moral compass on its head and reverses everything. Hope this helps a little in understanding my perspective. 1
USU78 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 The quote you posted from The Proclamation, has nothing to do with SSM. If anything, SSM promotes 'family'. A ridiculous threadjack
stemelbow Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) From a purely public health perspective, there is nothing more dangerous to humanity than homosexual society- if practiced uniformly, it would result in extinction of all humans on earth in just one generation. Compare that to obesity or smoking or breast cancer. Considering it's possible to have children without sex, this simply is untrue. I also believe there is nothing more corrosive to the idea and legacy of families- speaking primarily from an eternal perspective. The family is the central context of God's plan for His children. The process of bringing God's spirit children to earth is dependent upon the physical relationship between men and women. Same-sex families turn God's plan on it's head. The acceptance of this type of family changes how men and women, boys and girls see the family, and inevitably God and His plan. Unless, of course, it was God's plan that we develop a way to produce kids, tabernacles for all these spirits, without sex. Nothing turns God's plan on it's head. He was well aware, I'm sure there were more ways to produce kids than to have sex. It seems He simply didn't tell us that. We'd figure it out, he realized. It doesn't seem to hurt His plan at all. Edited June 19, 2014 by stemelbow
Rock_N_Roll Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) You obviously haven't read it. Oh, contraire. I've read it many times. I think you read more into the document than is actually there. Edited June 19, 2014 by Rock_N_Roll
Rock_N_Roll Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 A ridiculous threadjack The 'threadjack' started with DJBrown. Not myself. 1
why me Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) If OW believe that women must be ordained into the priesthood, there is not much room for reaching a compromise. By putting the word must in their mission statement they basically said that they will fight until women are granted the priesthood. And since that is the case, what benefit would it have been for the GAs to meet them? And it also seems that their mission statement is contentious by making it a must. Also, their mission statement states that god is both male and female. Is this true for lds doctrine or is a false statement? http://ordainwomen.org/mission/ My other question is: If supporters of OW also believe that women must have the priesthood, are they in apostacy? And is this the reason why some may be facing discipline? Edited June 19, 2014 by why me
maxrep12 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Yes. I know multiple same-sex couples who have children. And they are generally law-abiding citizens who are for the most part good neighbors. Some of my closest friends in graduate school were gay. But there is a broader perspective that we have not seen yet. And I would suggest that you are seeing only the very short-term "fruit." From a purely public health perspective, there is nothing more dangerous to humanity than homosexual society- if practiced uniformly, it would result in extinction of all humans on earth in just one generation. Compare that to obesity or smoking or breast cancer. I also believe there is nothing more corrosive to the idea and legacy of families- speaking primarily from an eternal perspective. The family is the central context of God's plan for His children. The process of bringing God's spirit children to earth is dependent upon the physical relationship between men and women. Same-sex families turn God's plan on it's head. The acceptance of this type of family changes how men and women, boys and girls see the family, and inevitably God and His plan. Too many people believe (without knowing it) that society is inherently self-sustaining- that civilization can endure anything. And I think that is naive. Same sex marriage is the ultimate or extreme version of making black things white and up down. It turns the eternal moral compass on its head and reverses everything. Hope this helps a little in understanding my perspective.Why is it that I see you getting bounced from threads?
sethpayne Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 From a purely public health perspective, there is nothing more dangerous to humanity than homosexual society- if practiced uniformly, it would result in extinction of all humans on earth in just one generation. Compare that to obesity or smoking or breast cancer. With all due respect, I have a hard time believing someone who attended graduate school -- anywhere other than Liberty University -- could make such an absurdly comical remark. No one is advocating a "homosexual society" wherein everyone is gay. Good grief. Nature herself manages that quite well without our help. Somewhere between 5-10% of the human population is gay/lesbian. It's one of nature's ways of keeping populations in control. We see the exact same thing in large segments of the animal kingdom. Gay chimps. Lesbian geese. Bi-sexual bears. Are these animals sinning? Did they choose to be gay or bi-sexual? No. It is part of their very nature -- and if we believe that God created all we must accept that God created gay animals. To argue against gay marriage because of the fear that somehow all of us straight folks will either die out or convert is, as I say, comically absurd. 4
Senator Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Well, we don't know a whole lot except that it exists and that it collects and provides info on members to local leaders. Well, smac, if you're ever out of a job.................
DJBrown Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Why is it that I see you getting bounced from threads? No. Never been bounced.
sethpayne Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Well, smac, if you're ever out of a job................. I will say that if I ever need a lawyer, Smac is the first person I'm going to call. If anyone can chase down the information I need to offer a solid defense, it's Smac. And of course, if Smac were a prosecuting attorney and I a defendant, I'd just confess. Edited June 19, 2014 by sethpayne 2
rockpond Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Nope. I doubt they are monitoring everyone. Mostly because that would be incredibly boring. Someone referred it to them or this person did or said something so that a local leader decided to check in on their blog. Good to know how our tithing dollars are being spent.
DJBrown Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 With all due respect, I have a hard time believing someone who attended graduate school -- anywhere other than Liberty University -- could make such an absurdly comical remark. No one is advocating a "homosexual society" wherein everyone is gay. Good grief. Nature herself manages that quite well without our help. Somewhere between 5-10% of the human population is gay/lesbian. It's one of nature's ways of keeping populations in control. We see the exact same thing in large segments of the animal kingdom. Gay chimps. Lesbian geese. Bi-sexual bears. Are these animals sinning? Did they choose to be gay or bi-sexual? No. It is part of their very nature -- and if we believe that God created all we must accept that God created gay animals. To argue against gay marriage because of the fear that somehow all of us straight folks will either die out or convert is, as I say, comically absurd. I am approaching this in this specific instance from a public health perspective (I am a physician). It is absolutely true that if everybody adopted the homosexual lifestyle, we would be extinct (barring the in vitro route). Now consider the public health campaigns out there to combat such things as breast cancer, obesity, smoking, etc. Also consider the relative impact on society of these diseases. There is absolutely no comparison with the impact of universal homosexuality. None of these public health campaigns are initiated and funded because people believe the diseases targeted will result in the death of everybody. Not even close. Yet the homosexual lifestyle is very much promoted by secular society. It really is a strange thing. I have never argued or suggested that legalizing gay marriage would result in all straight folks dying out or convert. I never said that. I merely compared it to public health initiatives that focus time and money that don't even compare to the theoretical impact that universal homosexuality would have. The moral and society desolation that I believe will occur as same-sex marriage is accepted and supported will likely come from the moral bankruptcy inherent in such amorality, not necessarily any direct physical result. I am attempting to provide a possible rationale for the position of the church on same-sex marriage and the firm stand against members of the church who support same sex marriage and similar issues.
sethpayne Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I am approaching this in this specific instance from a public health perspective (I am a physician). It is absolutely true that if everybody adopted the homosexual lifestyle, we would be extinct (barring the in vitro route). Now consider the public health campaigns out there to combat such things as breast cancer, obesity, smoking, etc. Also consider the relative impact on society of these diseases. There is absolutely no comparison with the impact of universal homosexuality. None of these public health campaigns are initiated and funded because people believe the diseases targeted will result in the death of everybody. Not even close. Yet the homosexual lifestyle is very much promoted by secular society. It really is a strange thing. I have never argued or suggested that legalizing gay marriage would result in all straight folks dying out or convert. I never said that. I merely compared it to public health initiatives that focus time and money that don't even compare to the theoretical impact that universal homosexuality would have. The moral and society desolation that I believe will occur as same-sex marriage is accepted and supported will likely come from the moral bankruptcy inherent in such amorality, not necessarily any direct physical result. I am attempting to provide a possible rationale for the position of the church on same-sex marriage and the firm stand against members of the church who support same sex marriage and similar issues. Ok. But your proposed hypothetical society has absolutely no relevance to anything whatsoever. I could make the exact same argument about becoming a Catholic Priest/Nun. Or even a Buddhist Monk/Nun (in most traditions). If we lived in a society of universal religious nuns and monks that would represent a massive public health problem. Should we launch campaigns to eradicate the scourge of monasticism? 2
rockpond Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) I am approaching this in this specific instance from a public health perspective (I am a physician). It is absolutely true that if everybody adopted the homosexual lifestyle, we would be extinct (barring the in vitro route). Now consider the public health campaigns out there to combat such things as breast cancer, obesity, smoking, etc. Also consider the relative impact on society of these diseases. There is absolutely no comparison with the impact of universal homosexuality. None of these public health campaigns are initiated and funded because people believe the diseases targeted will result in the death of everybody. Not even close. Yet the homosexual lifestyle is very much promoted by secular society. It really is a strange thing. I have never argued or suggested that legalizing gay marriage would result in all straight folks dying out or convert. I never said that. I merely compared it to public health initiatives that focus time and money that don't even compare to the theoretical impact that universal homosexuality would have. The moral and society desolation that I believe will occur as same-sex marriage is accepted and supported will likely come from the moral bankruptcy inherent in such amorality, not necessarily any direct physical result. I am attempting to provide a possible rationale for the position of the church on same-sex marriage and the firm stand against members of the church who support same sex marriage and similar issues. The thing is, we understand that there is no risk of everyone "adopting a homosexual lifestyle". It's not a choice and there seems to be a consistently small percentage of the population who are naturally homosexual. So you're comparison relies on a public health concern that doesn't exist. Edited June 19, 2014 by rockpond
why me Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) The thing is, we understand that there is no risk of everyone "adopting a homosexual lifestyle". It's not a choice and there seems to be a consistently small percentage of the population who are naturally homosexual. So you're comparison relies on a public health concern that doesn't exist.However, holllywood has been stressing the homosexual lifestyle for years because many TV series have a homosexual character in it. Why? Why the need to promote the homosexual lifestyle on the TV if only a small percentage of the population are homosexuals? And has the prominence of homosexual characters on the TV helped turn people's attitudes in accepting SSM and in adopting a homosexual lifestyle? Edited June 19, 2014 by why me
DJBrown Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Ok. But your proposed hypothetical society has absolutely no relevance to anything whatsoever. I could make the exact same argument about becoming a Catholic Priest/Nun. Or even a Buddhist Monk/Nun (in most traditions). If we lived in a society of universal religious nuns and monks that would represent a massive public health problem. Should we launch campaigns to eradicate the scourge of monasticism? No single line or argument is perfect, including that specific one I suggested. But it is hypocritical for society to approach the two behaviors so differently. Ultimately, the homosexual community is in effect hiding behind what stability there is in heterosexual society. I believe the prophets and in their stand against same sex marriage. And I believe it is naive to think that the negative effects of same sex marriage on society are minimal. We are watching the breakdown of the family before our eyes. I am confident you are aware of the statistical support for that claim over the past several decades. Many things likely contribute to divorces, infidelity, abuse, and the significant trend of people not marrying or forming families. One trend that is concomitant is the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, including same sex marriage. I am well aware of the difficulty in accounting for confounding variables and teasing out all related factors. But I think there is good reason to believe that the moral changes that contribute to society's acceptance of the gay lifestyle also contribute to the overall change in the way we see families and their relative decline.
rockpond Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 However, holllywood has been stressing the homosexual lifestyle for years because many TV series have a homosexual character in it. Why? Why the need to promote the homosexual lifestyle on the TV if only a small percentage of the population are homosexuals? That's an odd question that presupposes Hollywood to be "promoting" a lifestyle. By that standard, they have been promoting/stressing heterosexuality far more and for far longer than homosexuality. Why the need to promote the heterosexual lifestyle if the majority of the population is already straight. What you are seeing is Hollywood reflecting the reality of the world we live in... gay people exist. There is no reason to exclude them from being represented as characters on TV shows. 2
rockpond Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 No single line or argument is perfect, including that specific one I suggested. But it is hypocritical for society to approach the two behaviors so differently. Ultimately, the homosexual community is in effect hiding behind what stability there is in heterosexual society. I believe the prophets and in their stand against same sex marriage. And I believe it is naive to think that the negative effects of same sex marriage on society are minimal. We are watching the breakdown of the family before our eyes. I am confident you are aware of the statistical support for that claim over the past several decades. Many things likely contribute to divorces, infidelity, abuse, and the significant trend of people not marrying or forming families. One trend that is concomitant is the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, including same sex marriage. I am well aware of the difficulty in accounting for confounding variables and teasing out all related factors. But I think there is good reason to believe that the moral changes that contribute to society's acceptance of the gay lifestyle also contribute to the overall change in the way we see families and their relative decline. Hmmm... the "moral changes" that make us think it's okay for two gay people to make a lifelong commitment to each other are the same moral changes that make us think it's okay to divorce or have children out of wedlock. Interesting.
teddyaware Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 If publically airing ones doctrinal and other greavances with ones preisthood authorities is an excommunicable offense like this recent rash of witch hunts has shown, Then Paul should have been excommunicated for blogging about his greivances with Peter. On doctrinal AND procedural grounds. GAL 2 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Just sayin. In this instance, the reason why Paul wasn't excommunicated (or even disciplined for that matter) is because Peter knew he was wrong to have indulged the Judaizing sensibilities of semi-converted Jewish converts to Christ. Peter feared that if these proud former Jews saw him sharing a meal with the Gentiles, in disobedience to the Law of Moses, he might lose these touchy semi-converts before they could be brought to understand that the Law of Moses was abolished and a great many of its strictures -- such as not being allowed to mingle with "unclean" Gentiles -- were no longer in force nor applicable. This was likely a onetime incident where things were smoothed out between Peter and Paul before they both retired to bed. It's also important to note that Paul was an Apostle, and it's not at all uncommon for the General Authorities to disagree with one another from time to time. Now in the case of Kate, her disobedience to the counsel of the presiding Church authorities has been going on for many months now, and she still shows no apparent sign of relenting in her misguided efforts. Your attempt to compare Peter and Paul's passing incident with Kate's ongoing defiance to the counsel of the General authorities is an apples and oranges comparison that doesn't really work. Sorry to pop your bubble.
DJBrown Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Hmmm... the "moral changes" that make us think it's okay for two gay people to make a lifelong commitment to each other are the same moral changes that make us think it's okay to divorce or have children out of wedlock. Interesting. Really? The association is not apparent to you?
why me Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 That's an odd question that presupposes Hollywood to be "promoting" a lifestyle. By that standard, they have been promoting/stressing heterosexuality far more and for far longer than homosexuality. Why the need to promote the heterosexual lifestyle if the majority of the population is already straight. What you are seeing is Hollywood reflecting the reality of the world we live in... gay people exist. There is no reason to exclude them from being represented as characters on TV shows.It is a fact which has been documented. There has been coordinated effort of promoting the homosexual lifestyle to soften the public's attitude toward homosexuality. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/hollywoods-gay-culture-reshaping-america http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=168 Of course, it is all open to debate. But it shouldn't be just dismissed as nonsense.
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Good to know how our tithing dollars are being spent.Considering them to be YOUR tithing dollars means you do not get the principle.
cdowis Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 DJBrown, respectfully, I have to ask if you know any same-sex families. The ones I know are great examples of what families should be. These same-sex parents love and sacrifice for their children. Their example encourages me to strengthen my own heterosexual marriage. Just as with heterosexual adoptive couples I know, same-sex adoptive couples can do everything for their children with the one exception of providing dna. This is a very common mistake =>> making a judgement based on "love and sacrifice for their children", ignoring the fact that such wonderful husbands and family men have also been instrumental in creating chaos and great damage to society. History gives us many such examples. In looking at history of the Nazi party, for example, I was shocked and surprised how great family men, and well known among their supporters for their family life, have committed enormous damage to society. One such leader (I forget the name) was well-known for his wife and children and the great family life. At the end of the war, he committed suicide, killing his wife and all of their children. I have learned the lesson -- follow the prophets. Nazis? This thread must have run its course.
sethpayne Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) I have learned the lesson -- follow the prophets. Always, without exception? http://signaturebooks.com/2010/06/reviews-elder-statesman-a-biography-of-j-reuben-clark/ In February 1941, the New York Times reported that Berlin’s Nazi Party newspaper referred to the necessity of “eliminating all Jews.” This was an echo of the LDS newspaper’s headline in 1938, “Death for 700,000 Jews Threatened: Semites Must Get Out or Die, Nazis Declare.” Even this stark Utah report gave less than one-tenth of Adolf Hitler’s goal of killing every Jew in Europe. During the balance of 1941 and increasingly thereafter, newspapers in every major American city reported specific examples of the mass execution of Jews throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. In apparent response to such reports, LDS author N. L. Nelson wrote a book against Hitler in the early months of 1941 and referred to the Nazi “butchery” of the Jews. In his June reply to Nelson’s manuscript, Reuben defended Hitler and added, “There is nothing in their history which indicates that the Jewish race have [sic] either free-agency or liberty. ‘Law and order’ are not facts for the Jews” (p. 335). Edited June 19, 2014 by sethpayne
Recommended Posts