Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[rockpond]

Look, the problem I see it is that being gay is becoming more acceptable and as such, there are many gays who want justification for their lifestyles and want church support to the extent of redefining marriage. We can all hear sob stories about how wrong such and such was treated. Youknow what? You are going to find that in any and every culture. The gay LDS community needs to stop being prejudice against the LDS church and instead embrace the teachings from the prophet.

 

Have you considered why gay church members might want church acceptance (including marriage) rather than just leaving the LDS church and going to one that does allow for gay marriage?

[Rob Osborn]

Have you considered why gay church members might want church acceptance (including marriage) rather than just leaving the LDS church and going to one that does allow for gay marriage?

The slippery slope my brother.

[Storm Rider]

I fail to see hostility about a right that did not exist.  The current political issue is for this subgroup to gain a right heretofore absent from our social history.  It has not existed and the citizens of the country have consistently denied that it should exist.  The judiciary has de facto voted the will of the people to implement their unilateral concept of what a "right" is and what it is not.  

 

There is certainly room for a discussion in the Church of Jesus Christ on the acutely painful challenges of having, possessing, and dealing with SSA.  However, there is no room for a conversation for a discussion about this is my passion and I deserve to act upon my passions and be accepted for it.  We have a clear delineation between right and wrong.  Wrong does not become right simply because we want it to.  Subjection of our will and the alignment of our will to God's is a worthy conversation to have.

 

If it makes political hay to discuss things in terms of who is hostile and who is not, even if it is hurts, is a rather offensive position.  It is the equivalent of saying, "you are a moral degenerate and a buggerer, it may be painful, but it is true."  These types of comments are only meant to belittle the opposing party and dress oneself in sanctimonious garb. 

[rockpond]

The slippery slope my brother.

Care to elaborate?

Edited October 1, 2014 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I fail to see hostility about a right that did not exist. The current political issue is for this subgroup to gain a right heretofore absent from our social history. It has not existed and the citizens of the country have consistently denied that it should exist. The judiciary has de facto voted the will of the people to implement their unilateral concept of what a "right" is and what it is not.

There is certainly room for a discussion in the Church of Jesus Christ on the acutely painful challenges of having, possessing, and dealing with SSA. However, there is no room for a conversation for a discussion about this is my passion and I deserve to act upon my passions and be accepted for it. We have a clear delineation between right and wrong. Wrong does not become right simply because we want it to. Subjection of our will and the alignment of our will to God's is a worthy conversation to have.

If it makes political hay to discuss things in terms of who is hostile and who is not, even if it is hurts, is a rather offensive position. It is the equivalent of saying, "you are a moral degenerate and a buggerer, it may be painful, but it is true." These types of comments are only meant to belittle the opposing party and dress oneself in sanctimonious garb.

The right did exist in California and was removed (temporarily) by Prop 8.

I agree with the rest of what you have written.

[california boy]

I fail to see hostility about a right that did not exist.  The current political issue is for this subgroup to gain a right heretofore absent from our social history.  It has not existed and the citizens of the country have consistently denied that it should exist.  The judiciary has de facto voted the will of the people to implement their unilateral concept of what a "right" is and what it is not.  

 

The right of equal protection under the constitution for ALL American citizens has ALWAYS existed.  It is just a right that has been denied homosexual citizens for far too long.  EVERY single district judge has ruled the right to marry is based of the equal protection clause found in the 14th amendment.  EVERY single federal court panel has upheld those judicial decision based on the 14th amendment.  For you to say that right was not granted to homosexual citizens by the constitution of this country is to say you understand constitutional law better than all of the federal judges in this country.  To make such a claim, you are going to have to tell us what your qualifications are on constitutional law that is superior to all of these other well educated constitutional scholars.  I would love to hear what those qualifications are.  And if you hold such qualifications, I would love to hear what you are basing your judicial opinion on.

 

Just because a legal right that has been guaranteed by the founders of this country was denied for far too long does not mean that such a right is new or never existed before.  Our country has a long history of denying guaranteed rights of minority citizens in this country that required those minorities to fight for those rights long denied them.  The fact that the Mormon church has been and continues to fight to deny that guaranteed right and continues to do so even after such overwhelming judicial evidence is both shameful and hostile.  By doing so has added to the shame on the church that already has been there from past discrimination against a minority.  Practicing one's religious beliefs is also guaranteed by the constitution.  Fighting other citizens to deny their rights guaranteed them under the constitution is hostile and shameful. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I fail to see hostility about a right that did not exist.  The current political issue is for this subgroup to gain a right heretofore absent from our social history.  It has not existed and the citizens of the country have consistently denied that it should exist.  The judiciary has de facto voted the will of the people to implement their unilateral concept of what a "right" is and what it is not.  

 

There is certainly room for a discussion in the Church of Jesus Christ on the acutely painful challenges of having, possessing, and dealing with SSA.  However, there is no room for a conversation for a discussion about this is my passion and I deserve to act upon my passions and be accepted for it.  We have a clear delineation between right and wrong.  Wrong does not become right simply because we want it to.  Subjection of our will and the alignment of our will to God's is a worthy conversation to have.

 

If it makes political hay to discuss things in terms of who is hostile and who is not, even if it is hurts, is a rather offensive position.  It is the equivalent of saying, "you are a moral degenerate and a buggerer, it may be painful, but it is true."  These types of comments are only meant to belittle the opposing party and dress oneself in sanctimonious garb. 

No rights have been denied. What changed was a definition. And most still do not accept this new definition. That is were this whole same sex marriage debate falls apart. If we accept the new definition they win. IF we do not they don't have a leg to stand on.

[Rob Osborn]

Care to elaborate?

Accepting of gays (active) in religious circles is the slippery slope. Not far from placing homosexuality on a pedestal and worshiping it.

[california boy]

Look, the problem I see it is that being gay is becoming more acceptable and as such, there are many gays who want justification for their lifestyles and want church support to the extent of redefining marriage. We can all hear sob stories about how wrong such and such was treated. Youknow what? You are going to find that in any and every culture. The gay LDS community needs to stop being prejudice against the LDS church and instead embrace the teachings from the prophet.

 

This is nonsense written by you because you simply do not understand that gay Americans have been denied the right of equal protection in this country and finally they are receiving it.  Please read my above post.  

 

What is becoming acceptable is the realization that ALL Americans deserve equal protection.  What is becoming increasing acceptable is realizing that just because a person is gay does not mean they can not fall in love and live happy lives just like the rest of America.  What is becoming increasing acceptable is that you have no right controlling other citizens rights just because you have a different religious belief.  What is becoming increasingly acceptable is that a gay couple can be a great neighbor and a productive member of the community.

 

Believe me, gay citizens could care less if the Mormon church "accepts" the fact that they are gay or not just like any group outside of the church.  Do you think that other groups who do not believe the church teaching cares about what Mormons think of their "lifestyle"? (what ever that means).  The exception to that is gay Mormons that wish they could be a part of a community and church that they deeply believe in and love.  It is unfortunate that you only read such pain as "sob stories".  One would think that through all those hour spent in church you would learn the concept of compassion eveen if you believe the church is right in it's stand against gay marriage both within and outside the church.

[california boy]

No rights have been denied. What changed was a definition. And most still do not accept this new definition. That is were this whole same sex marriage debate falls apart. If we accept the new definition they win. IF we do not they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Ah we have another constitutional scholar whose qualifications in understanding constitutional law is greater than ALL the combined district and circuit judges in the entire country.  Do you care to give us your legal qualifications on constitutional law?

[rockpond]

Accepting of gays (active) in religious circles is the slippery slope. Not far from placing homosexuality on a pedestal and worshiping it.

 

Okay.  Well my question was this:  Have you considered why gay church members might want church acceptance (including marriage) rather than just leaving the LDS church and going to one that does allow for gay marriage?

[Rob Osborn]

Okay.  Well my question was this:  Have you considered why gay church members might want church acceptance (including marriage) rather than just leaving the LDS church and going to one that does allow for gay marriage?

Twenty years ago it would have never been imagined. Since then we have slid down the slippery slope to think gay marriage might be morally acceptable.

[rockpond]

No rights have been denied. What changed was a definition. And most still do not accept this new definition. That is were this whole same sex marriage debate falls apart. If we accept the new definition they win. IF we do not they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

The preponderance of federal judges disagree with you.  (Click here for reference)

 

Also, it seems that "most" do accept gay marriage:  Here's an article on the US polling data.  And here's an article on the poll results in Utah. 

[rockpond]

Twenty years ago it would have never been imagined. Since then we have slid down the slippery slope to think gay marriage might be morally acceptable.

 

Okay... so you don't want to answer the question.  Got it.

[JLHPROF]

The preponderance of federal judges disagree with you.  (Click here for reference)

 

Also, it seems that "most" do accept gay marriage:  Here's an article on the US polling data.  And here's an article on the poll results in Utah. 

 

Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

[rockpond]

Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

 

Amen.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay... so you don't want to answer the question.  Got it.

Okay... so you don't want to answer the question.  Got it.

What are you asking? I only know that gay mormons for marriage only want it because the lack of a good moral society we have created and embraced.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The preponderance of federal judges disagree with you.  (Click here for reference)

 

 

Well I am not the one that is corrupt. So good on ya.

[rockpond]

What are you asking? I only know that gay mormons for marriage only want it because the lack of a good moral society we have created and embraced.

 

Then why not leave the church and go to a religion that supports gay marriage already?  Or no religion at all?

[rockpond]

Well I am not the one that is corrupt. So good on ya.

 

Yeah, it's easy to just say everyone else is corrupt.

[california boy]

Well I am not the one that is corrupt. So good on ya.

Evidently you are also not the one that has studied constitutional law and understands the fundamental guarantees given to ALL Americans.  Calling others who disagree with your legal opinion as being corrupt is really, well, silly isn't it.

[JLHPROF]

Evidently you are also not the one that has studied constitutional law and understands the fundamental guarantees given to ALL Americans.  Calling others who disagree with your legal opinion as being corrupt is really, well, silly isn't it.

 

Constitutional law... that old "pursuit of happiness" clause.  But anyone with common sense realizes there has to be a limit to the pursuit of happiness.  Not everything that makes us happy should be legal.

[Storm Rider]

No rights have been denied. What changed was a definition. And most still do not accept this new definition. That is were this whole same sex marriage debate falls apart. If we accept the new definition they win. IF we do not they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

I agree completely. You can see the activists with Hollywood's steady, constant flow of the most benign "it is only about love" drivel, constant distortion of reality.  Worse, they are absolutely dead set against any negative studies or news about the true gay lifestyle.  This is a relationship of minutes; marriages in name only without any degree of faithfulness.  To prove their point they slam the door on reality and pander to the rare exception of those two, desperately in love, boys that fight against the harsh world as they defend their right to love one another openly.  

 

It has never been about marriage and it has always been about accept our immorality, our ten minute relationships, and stuff  your "straight", Christian, false morality in your ear.   We are gay and we are proud.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, it's easy to just say everyone else is corrupt.

Except I am not. Rofl.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Evidently you are also not the one that has studied constitutional law and understands the fundamental guarantees given to ALL Americans.  Calling others who disagree with your legal opinion as being corrupt is really, well, silly isn't it.

I am sorry where is marriage even mentioned in the constitution. I am not asking for your opinion on weather or not you could make an argument for gay marriage by misunderstanding the constitution and the bill of rights. I am asking were it is defined?

 

Definitions matter quite a bit. Since it is not defined and states passed laws to amend their own constitutions on what they would legally define as a marriage, these corrupt judges have no business  calling it "unconstitutional" and over riding  the will of the people on what they chose to define. And the old race canards are not going to help your case.   There is no clause in the constitutions or bill of rights that say "A state cannot define something that is not defined" but that is essentially what they are doing under the name of "equal protection". But equal protection does not apply because of the definition of marriage as passed, say in Utah, because gays would not be in a marriage as it is legally defined so there is no discrimination. But when you redefine the word "2 consenting adults makes a marriage" Then you have a case.

 

If gays want to be in a domestic partnership that is afforded the same rights as a marriage, I have no issue what soever with it. But a marriage it is not and a marriage it will never be no matter how many judges rule on it.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram