mormonnewb Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Rockpond, give yourself one rep point for EVERY one of your posts in this thread. I can't give them on my mobile device but on behalf of Team Love, THANK YOU! 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Maybe one day we'll have the prophet telling us it's now ok for gays to be married, like when the prophets told us that blacks could hold the priesthood. Nothing would surprise me anymore. 1
rockpond Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Maybe one day we'll have the prophet telling us it's now ok for gays to be married, like when the prophets told us that blacks could hold the priesthood. Nothing would surprise me anymore.I believe there are many of us that hope and pray for that day. 1
rockpond Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Rockpond, give yourself one rep point for EVERY one of your posts in this thread. I can't give them on my mobile device but on behalf of Team Love, THANK YOU!Thanks for the kind words but I am just one of many. 1
Daniel2 Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 (edited) The joke was there's no sodomites around to ask since they were destroyed.Gotcha. I misunderstood, since sodomite was lowercase. Edited September 13, 2014 by Daniel2 1
Rodeo Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 Here is the CFRhttp://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-January/000099.htmlhttp://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02http://www.edgeboston.com/columnists/talk_it_out///120030/gay_men,_monogamy_&_myth:_is_it_possible
Rodeo Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 CFR. For all of those statements you are claiming as fact. Or retract them. What happened to our responsibility for tolerance, compassion, and love. Your language reflects none of that. And the vast majority of families in the world do not subscribe to our same beliefs. The LDS Church's definition of family doesn't get to be the sole legal definition. Finally, what has the gay rights movement done to heterosexual marriage?Tolerance to what amd whom? We all recognize the reality of SSA and our hearts go out to them to help them overcome temptation. But there really isnt no tolerance for homosexual behavior. For that matter there cant be tolerance for any form of immoral behavior. Tell me, what immoral sins does the church tolerate and allow? We can and should have compassion and love for all of Gods children. But it is the ol line of love the sinner but not the sin.The gay rights movement has brought traditional marriage under attack.
Thinking Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 You are right not to judge him but you could at least help him to weigh the pros and cons between having an eternal companion of either sex. What pros and cons can I help him weigh if the LDS Church teaches that he can't have a male eternal companion? Like, with a same sex companion he can't have any children, because it takes someone of the opposite sex to do that with. They could maybe take another couple's child, if they could get away with it, but they would never be able to create a child together, just the 2 of them. With the advances in medical technology, I would be hesitant to say never. And you could also explain that there is nothing at all wrong with realizing a man is sexually attractive, as many of opposite sex would attest. Just because someone else of same sex doesn't think that man is sexually attractive doesn't mean he isn't, generally. Some people just have a problem with being able to see that someone of the same sex is sexually attractive to someone else of the same sex. I'm not really sure what this paragraph means. I believe our Father realizes we are all sexually attractive, in some way. Or this.
rockpond Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Here is the CFRhttp://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-January/000099.htmlhttp://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02http://www.edgeboston.com/columnists/talk_it_out///120030/gay_men,_monogamy_&_myth:_is_it_possibleAny scientific peer-reviewed data?Consider the sources you are using to form your opinions on these matters.
rockpond Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Tolerance to what amd whom? We all recognize the reality of SSA and our hearts go out to them to help them overcome temptation. But there really isnt no tolerance for homosexual behavior. For that matter there cant be tolerance for any form of immoral behavior. Tell me, what immoral sins does the church tolerate and allow? We can and should have compassion and love for all of Gods children. But it is the ol line of love the sinner but not the sin.The gay rights movement has brought traditional marriage under attack.First, I'm not even sure that there is a well understood definition of "homosexual behavior". But, I don't thing we need to tolerate pre- and extra-marital sex. But we should show tolerance (the lowest possible standard) and love (the goal) to our homosexual brothers and sisters. You say that we can and should show compassion and love for all of God's children. Do you think that a gay or lesbian church member reading this thread feels love and compassion coming from you through your words?How has the gay rights movement brought heterosexual marriage under attack?
Rain Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) If it seems like a mouthful, you may want to reconsider the need to single out "homosexual behavior". Isn't pre- and extra- marital sex the sin? Do we even need to specify the genders of the participants?Pre- and extra- only work when no homosexuals ever get married. If homosexual acts are a sin then the church needs to speak about those acts just as it does about pre- and extra- as well as all the other sins of thieving, murdering etc. Edited September 14, 2014 by Rain
Rodeo Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 First, I'm not even sure that there is a well understood definition of "homosexual behavior". But, I don't thing we need to tolerate pre- and extra-marital sex. But we should show tolerance (the lowest possible standard) and love (the goal) to our homosexual brothers and sisters. You say that we can and should show compassion and love for all of God's children. Do you think that a gay or lesbian church member reading this thread feels love and compassion coming from you through your words?How has the gay rights movement brought heterosexual marriage under attack?Just because I condemn homosexual behavior does not mean I cant show forth love to homosexuals themselves. What do you expect from th church and its members? You want us to go around and just turn the other way and ignore the behavior and say its alright? What message does that send? Hopefully those who are gay read all the links posted so far and realize that homosecual behavior does not lead to happiness and that it is sinful and contrary to Gods plan for us. Its time we stop sugar coating the issue and openly acknowledge that the behavior aspect is unhealthy and leads one further into darkness.
rockpond Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Pre- and extra- only work when no homosexuals ever get married. If homosexual acts are a sin then the church needs to speak about those acts just as the do about pre- and extra- as well as all the other sins of thieving, murdering etc.True. But since married homosexuals aren't breaking the law of chastity (per the temple definition) it's not really a conflicting statement for me. I recognize others believe differently. At what point do homosexual acts become "sin"? Holding hands? Dating? Slow dancing together? Kissing? Or just the sex act?
rockpond Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Just because I condemn homosexual behavior does not mean I cant show forth love to homosexuals themselves. What do you expect from th church and its members? You want us to go around and just turn the other way and ignore the behavior and say its alright? What message does that send? Hopefully those who are gay read all the links posted so far and realize that homosecual behavior does not lead to happiness and that it is sinful and contrary to Gods plan for us. Its time we stop sugar coating the issue and openly acknowledge that the behavior aspect is unhealthy and leads one further into darkness.Really? You think the church has sugar-Coates the issue? That's the problem? Do you think gay church members feel sugar-coated? Do you think any gay church members don't understand the church's position on homosexuality?I certainly do not think that we should condone immoral behavior. We should teach the gospel and encourage all (including ourselves) to repent and come into Christ. Do you think what you have written on this thread shows love to homosexuals?
california boy Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 And just what is the statistical average for a gay committed and covenant relationship to stay together, remain monogamous and be happy? Less than 1%!. Perhaps that is even impossible. One of the lies the gay rights movement wants people to believe is that most homosexual relationships are happy, fulfilling, monogamous relationships that deserve the same protective rights as religious heterosexual monogamous marriages. This is not the truth. A great many homosexual relationships and same sex marriages are built around infidelity and non monogamous agreements. You've been asked for a reference on the statistic you mention above. I third that CFR. Please provide it or retract your statement. Here is the CFRhttp://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-January/000099.htmlhttp://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02http://www.edgeboston.com/columnists/talk_it_out///120030/gay_men,_monogamy_&_myth:_is_it_possible None of these studies mention anything about 1%. Nor are they studies about gay married couples. If your point is that gays who are not married have higher number of sex partners and higher rates of STD's then yes everyone will agree with that. Straight men that are not married also have higher numbers of sex partners and higher rates of STD's. Should we not allow straight men to marry also? Your CFR reamins unfulfilled. Either provide the studies or retract your statement.
Rodeo Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 Really? You think the church has sugar-Coates the issue? That's the problem? Do you think gay church members feel sugar-coated? Do you think any gay church members don't understand the church's position on homosexuality?I certainly do not think that we should condone immoral behavior. We should teach the gospel and encourage all (including ourselves) to repent and come into Christ. Do you think what you have written on this thread shows love to homosexuals?We all sin, we all need repentence. We show love by bringing each other the truth and in persuading all to come unto Christ and seek his help and ask forgiveness for our sins. Sidestepping the issue or even ignoring it does nothing but further delay the process.
Rodeo Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 You've been asked for a reference on the statistic you mention above. I third that CFR. Please provide it or retract your statement. None of these studies mention anything about 1%. Nor are they studies about gay married couples. If your point is that gays who are not married have higher number of sex partners and higher rates of STD's then yes everyone will agree with that. Straight men that are not married also have higher numbers of sex partners and higher rates of STD's. Should we not allow straight men to marry also? Your CFR reamins unfulfilled. Either provide the studies or retract your statement.Its well proven that male homosexuals have more sex partners than heterosexuals.
rockpond Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 We all sin, we all need repentence. We show love by bringing each other the truth and in persuading all to come unto Christ and seek his help and ask forgiveness for our sins. Sidestepping the issue or even ignoring it does nothing but further delay the process.And do you think that if a gay person read what you've written here on this thread that you would then be in a position to help persuade them to come unto Christ?And again, who is sidestepping or ignoring the issue? I don't know what your point is with your continued references to that. Are you suggesting that we need to do more evil speaking of homosexuals like you've shown us here? Is that the better path?
rockpond Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Its well proven that male homosexuals have more sex partners than heterosexuals.Despite the proclamation you made in your OP, it now seems to me that you opened this thread to "bash gays".Could you pause for a moment to consider the fact that there are chaste gay church members who have the same desire as the rest of us for meaningful eternal companionship? Do you also realize that there are gay couples who have been in monogamous relationships for decades?
Brian 2.0 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Can you change the title of this thread? It's currently: "Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin" That sounds like you are starting a thread so that you, and others, can better understand SSA through discussion. It's quite clear that you just want to inform us what YOUR views of SSA are and not really discuss towards any type of "better understanding."
Rain Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) rockpond said:"True. But since married homosexuals aren't breaking the law of chastity (per the temple definition) it's not really a conflicting statement for me. I recognize others believe differently. At what point do homosexual acts become "sin"? Holding hands? Dating? Slow dancing together? Kissing? Or just the sex act?"--------------If you combine the temple definition with the definition on the front mobile page of gaysandmormons.org (because they both talk about the law of chastity) they are breaking the law of chastity:-----------"God has given us commandments that support family and individual happiness. One of these is the Law of Chastity — individuals should have no sexual relations except in marriage, which Latter-day Saints define as between a man and a woman."----------As far as when it starts it is not as clear. The first page also says, "The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. "So I'm thinking any time you act on SSA? For some that could be hand holding or a kiss? For others even a love note? Edited September 14, 2014 by Rain
omni Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Its well proven that male homosexuals have more sex partners than heterosexuals.Don't you think allowing them to marry would reduce the number of partners and encourage monogomy?
Storm Rider Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) Don't you think allowing them to marry would reduce the number of partners and encourage monogomy? Why would you think it would? I have not read any evidence that monogamy is a common state of being for those who practice the gay lifestyle. Conversely, I know many men who have only ever had a single sexual relationship and that is with their wife. Does that even exist among the gay population? I am not being facetious, but when one reads studies about the gay lifestyle it seems like multiple partners is just part of the life. Is this accurate or is it an exaggeration. Edited September 14, 2014 by Storm Rider
california boy Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Its well proven that male homosexuals have more sex partners than heterosexuals.Sorry but it has not been well proven. Can you point to a study that shows single gay men have more sexual partners than single straight men? Can you point to a study that shows unmarried gay couples living together have more sexual partners than unmarried straight couples living together? Making a statement like this does not satisify a CFR. The reason we have CFR's on this board is to back up what a person says is true. YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DO THAT. Withdraw the claim does not mean repeat the claim. 1
Bob Crockett Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Sorry but it has not been well proven. Can you point to a study that shows single gay men have more sexual partners than single straight men? Can you point to a study that shows unmarried gay couples living together have more sexual partners than unmarried straight couples living together?Making a statement like this does not satisify a CFR. The reason we have CFR's on this board is to back up what a person says is true. YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DO THAT. Withdraw the claim does not mean repeat the claim.
Recommended Posts