The Recent Change In My View Of Homosexual Marriage

[TOmNossor]

Reading through TOM's comments, it's the sex part that bothers him most, and he even (you TOM) mention something about it being needed for procreation only. Forgive me if I read that wrong or read between the lines. I want to challenge heterosexual couples then, to only have sex when procreating, cuz anything else is icky.

Interestingly, God designed a woman's body to have NON-procreative sexual relations about 75% of the time. It would seem that God is in favor of sex for purposes other than procreation.

Rockpond and Tacenda,

Cal is precisely correct (thanks Cal).

I think he specified it is also to bind them together as a couple that cares for their creation as well, iirc.

Thank you for asking, who knows how many other folks would have misunderstood my position and reasoned so wrongly against it.

Now that you understand, I am sure you will agree with me totally. <grin>

Charity, TOm

Edited November 21, 2014 by TOmNossor

[rockpond]

I am most comfortable saying that the proper coping strategy is to recognize that having SSA does not make them bad/broken/evil ..., but that homosexual relations are not a path to happiness.

Instead, they should seek connectedness and healthy relationships which MAY include opposite sex marriage and families.

They may ALWAYS have SSA that makes their experience of this life different from the majority of other humans, but that this does not define them.

As I have mentioned before, I know someone who has SSA, struggles, and is in a happy marriage with children. I have not mentioned, but ... I also know someone who has (or had) SSA, struggles, and is single. And I also know more than one someones who have SSA and are dating, together with the same man for 20+ years, together with the same woman for 5+ years, and ....

Charity, TOm

 

Thank you for adding the "MAY".  Though I still disagree with your position, I was concerned when you suggested the the proper coping strategy for was gay people to enter into heterosexual marriages.  Mixed orientation marriages have a poor success rate and I assume we all agree that we don't want broken homes.

 

I too know gay people in all situations in life.  Most happy.  Some struggling.  But that is true of my straight family and friends as well.  Of the two long-term married gay couples I know, they are quite stable and happy.  They lead wonderful lives, love their extended family, and serve others.  That is one reason why I don't feel that a "coping mechanism" is needed other than society learning to overcome its prejudices.

 

Finally, as you use the terminology of referring to homosexuals as "having SSA" I hope that you also realize that they DON'T "have OSA".  I think that's an important distinction that is sometimes overlooked.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

[Rob Osborn]

Not really sure how one can say society needs to overcome prejudices with SSM and homosexuals. To me thats like saying society needs to overcome prejudices concerning drug dealers so that we can accept them in our schools, neighborhoods, etc.

 

You are out of the thread.

[Tacenda]

Not really sure how one can say society needs to overcome prejudices with SSM and homosexuals. To me thats like saying society needs to overcome prejudices concerning drug dealers so that we can accept them in our schools, neighborhoods, etc.

Speechless! 

[USU78]

Speechless! 

 

Me, too, for its accuracy.

[TOmNossor]

Thank you for adding the "MAY". Though I still disagree with your position, I was concerned when you suggested the the proper coping strategy for was gay people to enter into heterosexual marriages. Mixed orientation marriages have a poor success rate and I assume we all agree that we don't want broken homes.

We do agree that we do not what broken homes.

The cause of broken homes IMO is seldom singular or simple. I do not believe two totally selfless people would be the originators of a broken home, of course I do not believe two totally selfless people exist in this world either.

Finally, as you use the terminology of referring to homosexuals as "having SSA" I hope that you also realize that they DON'T "have OSA". I think that's an important distinction that is sometimes overlooked.

I have been less precise with my terminology.

Having SSA is having same sex attraction, but I have typically not used this to mean being a homosexual.

I typically say "being a homosexual" to mean participating in homosexual relationships and having homosexual sex.

Those who I know who choose to not live a homosexual lifestyle do not say they are homosexuals, but can and do say they have SSA.

Now...

I do not believe sexual attractions it as simple as you say it is AND I also believe SOME homosexuals misrepresent their SSA as a total exclusion of OSA. Those who's SSA has resulted in choosing to identify as a homosexual are served by the denial of OSA. The 5 year stable relationship ( I mention above) is one in which there are SSA and OSA, but the SSA is expressed faithful (no cheating on one's partner). I also attended a LGBT event where the speaker dated the opposite sex, had a 5 year homosexual relationship, and then entered a heterosexual relationship.

Kinsey for all his faults I think was right that there is a spectrum (The Kinsey Scale).

I think there are folks at 6 on the Kinsey scale, but I doubt that everyone you know who lives a homosexual lifestyle is truly a 6.

I am not sure if this has a profound effect on my position or yours, but it is true IMO.

And thank you for the conversation too!

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Not really sure how one can say society needs to overcome prejudices with SSM and homosexuals. To me thats like saying society needs to overcome prejudices concerning drug dealers so that we can accept them in our schools, neighborhoods, etc.

Rob,

My thesis here is directed at winning the minds of folks who are unsure whether they should advocate for or against SSM. I am already convinced that California Boy will win their hearts.

I do not believe comparing those who live as homosexuals to drug dealers is going to help win minds or hearts and will likely detract from such efforts.

Do you have family or friends who engaged in pre-marital sex? Should they be expunged from "schools and neighborhoods" like drug dealers should be? I do not think so.

I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Heterosexual who have pre-marital sex are in a better position to avoid pre-marital sex than are homosexuals and we are all judged upon the situations we find ourselves in so ...

May we protect ourselves from drug dealers luring children to a horrible and addictive habit, but may we love our homosexual brothers and sisters while clearly teaching what is right and what is wrong.

I can acknowledge that all who celebrate their sin are luring others to participate, but I believe the comparison to those who try to entrap children in drug addiction at schools is totally unfair. And I also think the majority of homosexuals are quietly happy they do not face prejudices they once did.

Charity, TOm

[Daniel2]

Not really sure how one can say society needs to overcome prejudices against Mormonism and Latter-day "Saints." To me thats like saying society needs to overcome prejudices concerning drug dealers so that we can accept them in our schools, neighborhoods, etc.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Daniel2

[TOmNossor]

On November 17th, Lord Sacks said better than I have been able to precisely what I am trying to say in this thread.

http://www.rabbisacks.org/love-brings-new-life-world-rabbi-sacks-institution-marriage/

The whole thing is great, but here are some section I want to highlight here:

So that is one way of telling the story, a Jewish way, beginning with the birth of sexual reproduction, then the unique demands of human parenting, then the eventual triumph of monogamy as a fundamental statement of human equality, followed by the way marriage shaped our vision of the moral and religious life as based on love and covenant and faithfulness, even to the point of thinking of truth as a conversation between lover and beloved. Marriage and the family are where faith finds its home and where the Divine Presence lives in the love between husband and wife, parent and child.

What made the traditional family remarkable, a work of high religious art, is what it brought together: sexual drive, physical desire, friendship, companionship, emotional kinship and love, the begetting of children and their protection and care, their early education and induction into an identity and a history. Seldom has any institution woven together so many different drives and desires, roles and responsibilities. It made sense of the world and gave it a human face, the face of love.

Bolding Mine:

For a whole variety of reasons, some to do with medical developments like birth control, in vitro fertilisation and other genetic interventions, some to do with moral change like the idea that we are free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now been split apart. Sex has been divorced from love, love from commitment, marriage from having children, and having children from responsibility for their care.

The result is that in Britain in 2012, 47.5 per cent of children were born outside marriage, expected to become a majority in 2016. Fewer people are marrying, those who are, are marrying later, and 42 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Nor is cohabitation a substitute for marriage. The average length of cohabitation in Britain and the United States is less than two years. The result is a sharp increase among young people of eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, stress related syndromes, depression and actual and attempted suicides. The collapse of marriage has created a new form of poverty concentrated among single parent families, and of these, the main burden is born by women, who in 2011 headed 92 per cent of single parent households. In Britain today more than a million children will grow up with no contact whatsoever with their fathers.

This is creating a divide within societies the like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of “two nations” a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them into being will, on average, be healthier physically and emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will have more successful relationships, be happier and live longer. And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic instances of what Friedrich Hayek called “the fatal conceit” that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the lessons of biology and history.

Bolding Mine:

No one surely wants to go back to the narrow prejudices of the past. This week, in Britain, a new film opens, telling the story of one of the great minds of the twentieth century, Alan Turing, the Cambridge mathematician who laid the philosophical foundations of computing and artificial intelligence, and helped win the war by breaking the German naval code Enigma. After the war, Turing was arrested and tried for homosexual behaviour, underwent chemically induced castration, and died at the age of 41 by cyanide poisoning, thought by many to have committed suicide. That is a world to which we should never return.

But our compassion for those who choose to live differently should not inhibit us from being advocates for the single most humanising institution in history. The family, man, woman, and child, is not one lifestyle choice among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love. It is where we learn the delicate choreography of relationship and how to handle the inevitable conflicts within any human group. It is where we first take the risk of giving and receiving love. It is where one generation passes on its values to the next, ensuring the continuity of a civilization. For any society, the family is the crucible of its future, and for the sake of our children’s future, we must be its defenders.

Charity, TOm Edited November 21, 2014 by TOmNossor

[mfbukowski]

You owe him an apology.

 

This is a cheap strategy:  accuse whoever disagrees with you of being closeted.  A disgusting practice.  Knock it off.

It is the whole basis for the use of the word "homophobia".  The user of the term ironically confirms himself as a stereotypical passive-aggressive, sardonic, individual incapable of imagining that his behavior actually is repugnant to others.  It justifies, while at the same time condemning others for not having the same tendencies as the speaker. 

 

It does not recognize that there could possibly be real differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

And that is the irony- while asserting that difference, it denies it at the same time.  It seeks to make the whole world homosexual.

 

Perhaps we should use the term "heterophobia".  It may communicate the irony to those who are militant.

[rockpond]

We do agree that we do not what broken homes.The cause of broken homes IMO is seldom singular or simple. I do not believe two totally selfless people would be the originators of a broken home, of course I do not believe two totally selfless people exist in this world either.I have been less precise with my terminology.Having SSA is having same sex attraction, but I have typically not used this to mean being a homosexual.I typically say "being a homosexual" to mean participating in homosexual relationships and having homosexual sex.Those who I know who choose to not live a homosexual lifestyle do not say they are homosexuals, but can and do say they have SSA.Now...I do not believe sexual attractions it as simple as you say it is AND I also believe SOME homosexuals misrepresent their SSA as a total exclusion of OSA. Those who's SSA has resulted in choosing to identify as a homosexual are served by the denial of OSA. The 5 year stable relationship ( I mention above) is one in which there are SSA and OSA, but the SSA is expressed faithful (no cheating on one's partner). I also attended a LGBT event where the speaker dated the opposite sex, had a 5 year homosexual relationship, and then entered a heterosexual relationship.Kinsey for all his faults I think was right that there is a spectrum (The Kinsey Scale).I think there are folks at 6 on the Kinsey scale, but I doubt that everyone you know who lives a homosexual lifestyle is truly a 6.I am not sure if this has a profound effect on my position or yours, but it is true IMO.And thank you for the conversation too!Charity, TOm

I agree with your thoughts on the Kinsey scale. But I don't like the use of SSA as I find it condescending to most people who identify as gay. And I prefer to use the term homosexual as it is defined, meaning one's orientation regardless of whether or not they are acting on it.

[poptart]

http://everythingfunny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1cc17.jpg

 

Teehee~

[sunstoned]

I too would like to thank you for your thought provoking post.  Hopefully this thread will stay on track and really explore the implications of gay marriage without the bashing that often creeps into threads on SSM.

 

I would like to respond from a gay persons perspective.  

 

First I would like to address procreation.  Whether two men live together or whether two men are allowed to marry, the procreation aspects are identical.  In both situations, they can not have children.  And telling a gay person they must be celibate their whole lives also produce no children.  So procreation is really an irrelevant part of the discussion.

 

Second, sex.  Almost your whole thought process in coming to your conclusion is centered around sex.  And while sex is a part of most humans needs and drives, it is really a very small part of who we are and does not overshadow all the other needs that humans desire.  I think the sneeze comment was right on.  Furthermore, whether a gay couple is just living together or married, the sexual component remains unchanged.  In both relationships the amount of sex will probably be the same.  So the state telling a couple they are not allowed to marry changes nothing in regard to sex between two gay men.  It is also irrelevant part of the discussion.

 

Third. This brings us to the options a gay man has in life.  He can remain celibate.  This seems to be the prophets recommendation.  But let's examine this for a bit.  In order to promote celibacy, you are also promoting a life of loneliness and one without any companionship.  This seems to be a very important part of the human experience.  Telling a person that living alone is a good option is counter to almost every drive that we are born with whether you are straight or gay.  From a very early age, humans desire to find a mate they can share this human experience with.  One of the very first utterances of God was in fact, "It is not good for man to be alone,"  To demand celibacy, you have to embrace that in fact, it is good for man to be alone.  

 

Now think about the richness of your life for a moment, and take away the relationship you have with your spouse.  Just how important is that relationship?  More important than your work?  More important than your church callings?  More important than even your children??  Just what would you be willing to give up to live a celibate and separate life.  What would it be like coming home to an empty home?  What would it be like to not have someone to share your successes, failures, happiness, joy, even the gospel with?  Just how comfortable is the prophets call for all gay people to be celibate simply because they are attracted to the same sex.  How does celibacy for eternity fit into the gospel plan?  What Christ-like experiences come out of being with someone on this earth?  

 

From a societal point of view, do you think it would be better for the entire gay population to be running around single?  From a government point of view, should gays be expected to be celibate? Does the government have a right to also demand that single heterosexuals remain celibate?   Is society better off when gay couples can only shack up together rather than being allowed to be in a married relationship?  

 

This is the real question to be asked.  Would a gay church member be in a better place if they were in a committed married same sex relationship rather than being celibate and all of the emptiness that brings them?  

I know I am late coming to this discussion, but I have to thank you for sharing this perspective.  It is very enlightening and a good reminder that SSM is not just a philosophical debate.  This affects real people, their lives, and their happiness.   

[Tacenda]

I know I am late coming to this discussion, but I have to thank you for sharing this perspective. It is very enlightening and a good reminder that SSM is not just a philosophical debate. This affects real people, their lives, and their happiness.

I agree and didn't realize SSA should instead be homosexual or gay.

[TOmNossor]

I agree with your thoughts on the Kinsey scale. But I don't like the use of SSA as I find it condescending to most people who identify as gay. And I prefer to use the term homosexual as it is defined, meaning one's orientation regardless of whether or not they are acting on it.

There is a very important post that I want to respond more directly too shortly. It is earlier in this thread from Hamba Tuhan.

I used the term SSA because some folks have SSA and some do not. Some have almost or totally exclusive SSA others have SSA, but also have OSA.

The idea that a person with SSA is identified as a homosexual or a "???" or whatever IMO is ground I hope to not cede. I am willing to label folk as pro-choice though I think it problematic to view killing the unborn as a choice. But to say that folks ARE their attractions is a problem. Were I to be perfect in my use of terminology, I would not even say folks are or are not homosexuals UNLESS I mean that they are folks who identify themselves as homosexuals.

I maintain that we are children of God created for a purpose.

I think there is room within this discussion to find common ground with folks who might say we are evolved beings with attractions who make choices that will benefit us and/or society more or less (Let me mention that as a Christian, I think it is harder to accept God's post mortal rewards as an atheist than as a practicing, self-identifying homosexual AND I might add that there are many hurtles I face as I try to accept God's gifts some probably more difficult than both of them).

Because we are people who have attractions and make choices, I try to not label folks either homosexuals or heterosexual. I do not believe it is a "sin" to have SSA. I believe folks with SSA who self-identify as homosexuals and have homosexual sex are "sinning," but they are no more sinners than I am a sinner. We are all sinners, but when I am speaking as I should (IMO) I speak of sins as actions and people as children of God.

I believe the idea that folks with SSA simply are homosexuals is unhelpful and should be rejected. I think those who identify as homosexuals and for whatever reason are celibate, are not "sinning" in their sexual acts, but are perpetuating a label that is unhelpful for this discussion (well unhelpful for those who opposed SSM).

The concept of "sin" is not popular in today's culture, but it is real IMO. Some secularist try to remove the concept of sin from our vocabulary. Some Christians err when they believe or act like they believe that people are their sins. If this idea could stay in the front of my mind, I would not be among those "some Christians," but I know I fail in this.

So, for my part, folks have SSA. Folks have sexual relations with men and woman of the same or different sex. This is something I am discussing. Folks also label themselves and are labeled by others as homosexual or heterosexual, but this implies it is something they just ARE. I hope to avoid that.

Hamba's post is great. I should have responded to it earlier, but I got going in other directions. I think I will reply briefly to it and say I think there is much for me to learn from it, but that will probably happen tomorrow or later.

Charity, TOm

Edited November 23, 2014 by TOmNossor

[LinuxGal]

The concept of "sin" is not popular in today's culture, but it is real IMO. Some secularist try to remove the concept of sin from our vocabulary. Some Christians err when they believe or act like they believe that people are their sins. If this idea could stay in the front of my mind, I would not be among those "some Christians," but I know I fail in this.

 

Jesus spoke against divorce in 3 Nephi 12, but you have to go back to Leviticus or to the writings of Paul (which the Nephites and Lamanites didn't have) to find a teaching against homosexual behavior.  This doesn't mean Jesus would have approved, but it seems to indicate what his priority was for ordering his Church.  Yet today homosexuality the hottest topic in Christianity, bar none, and some of the biggest critics are themselves on their second or even third marriage.  Go figure.

[Glenn101]

Jesus spoke against divorce in 3 Nephi 12, but you have to go back to Leviticus or to the writings of Paul (which the Nephites and Lamanites didn't have) to find a teaching against homosexual behavior.  This doesn't mean Jesus would have approved, but it seems to indicate what his priority was for ordering his Church.  Yet today homosexuality the hottest topic in Christianity, bar none, and some of the biggest critics are themselves on their second or even third marriage.  Go figure.

 

 

Homosexuality is front and foremost right now because it is being put there by those advocating for the legalization of same sex marriage.

 

And to put 3 Nephi chapter 12 in perspective, IAW latter-day revelation, that is in reference to those who have been sealed together for all time and eternity, not just civilly.

 

Glenn

[california boy]

There is a very important post that I want to respond more directly too shortly. It is earlier in this thread from Hamba Tuhan.

I used the term SSA because some folks have SSA and some do not. Some have almost or totally exclusive SSA others have SSA, but also have OSA.

The idea that a person with SSA is identified as a homosexual or a "???" or whatever IMO is ground I hope to not cede. I am willing to label folk as pro-choice though I think it problematic to view killing the unborn as a choice. But to say that folks ARE their attractions is a problem. Were I to be perfect in my use of terminology, I would not even say folks are or are not homosexuals UNLESS I mean that they are folks who identify themselves as homosexuals.

I maintain that we are children of God created for a purpose.

I think there is room within this discussion to find common ground with folks who might say we are evolved beings with attractions who make choices that will benefit us and/or society more or less (Let me mention that as a Christian, I think it is harder to accept God's post mortal rewards as an atheist than as a practicing, self-identifying homosexual AND I might add that there are many hurtles I face as I try to accept God's gifts some probably more difficult than both of them).

Because we are people who have attractions and make choices, I try to not label folks either homosexuals or heterosexual. I do not believe it is a "sin" to have SSA. I believe folks with SSA who self-identify as homosexuals and have homosexual sex are "sinning," but they are no more sinners than I am a sinner. We are all sinners, but when I am speaking as I should (IMO) I speak of sins as actions and people as children of God.

I believe the idea that folks with SSA simply are homosexuals is unhelpful and should be rejected. I think those who identify as homosexuals and for whatever reason are celibate, are not "sinning" in their sexual acts, but are perpetuating a label that is unhelpful for this discussion (well unhelpful for those who opposed SSM).

The concept of "sin" is not popular in today's culture, but it is real IMO. Some secularist try to remove the concept of sin from our vocabulary. Some Christians err when they believe or act like they believe that people are their sins. If this idea could stay in the front of my mind, I would not be among those "some Christians," but I know I fail in this.

So, for my part, folks have SSA. Folks have sexual relations with men and woman of the same or different sex. This is something I am discussing. Folks also label themselves and are labeled by others as homosexual or heterosexual, but this implies it is something they just ARE. I hope to avoid that.

Hamba's post is great. I should have responded to it earlier, but I got going in other directions. I think I will reply briefly to it and say I think there is much for me to learn from it, but that will probably happen tomorrow or later.

Charity, TOm

I have really enjoyed reading your posts and think you are sincere in trying to work all of these gay issues out in your mind.  It is because of that I would like to give you something more to think about.

 

Do you think that someone is heterosexual only if they have had sex with someone of the opposite sex?  Did you consider yourself OSA before you were married or did you consider yourself heterosexual?  Just curious how your mind works.  I just have never heard someone who is straight refer themselves as opposite sex attracted.  And frankly I have never heard someone who is gay refer themselves as same sex attracted.  Like the dictionary states, a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex.  It has nothing to do with whether they have had sex or not.  If I told one of my kids they had OSA, they would probably ask me how long they had to live. lol.

 

I really don't care how members call gay people, but it is a bit comical and alphabet soup that few people really understand.  Most people think that SSA refers to the Social Security Administration and has nothing to do with virginity.  It all sounds very twisted terminology used so Mormons can decide who to be respectful of (anyone with SSA) and those who they can destain as sinners (homosexuals).  

 

Maybe you should ask yourself why you need to make such a distinct difference only when it comes to gays.  Should it affect how you treat them one bit????  Is it really something you need to judge them on?  Do you look at each and every ward member and determine whether they have OSA?  And whether they are still virgins? And if they are not virgins, do you start referring to them now as heterosexuals??  

Edited November 25, 2014 by california boy

[Rain]

And frankly I have never heard someone who is gay refer themselves as same sex attracted. Like the dictionary states, a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. It has nothing to do with whether they have had sex or not. If I told one of my kids they had OSA, they would probably ask me how long they had to live. lol.

I think most people talk about themselves as same sex or opposite sex attracted. They just don't use those specific terms. You usually hear, "she is hot" or "I like boys". Very few people define themselves as heterosexual even though they are aware they are. It's the attraction they talk about.

So it makes sense to me that when the term "homosexual" came into more popular use that some, including me, use the term SSA. OSA isn't used because heterosexual people rarely label themselves as "heterosexual".

[california boy]

I think most people talk about themselves as same sex or opposite sex attracted. They just don't use those specific terms. You usually hear, "she is hot" or "I like boys". Very few people define themselves as heterosexual even though they are aware they are. It's the attraction they talk about.

So it makes sense to me that when the term "homosexual" came into more popular use that some, including me, use the term SSA. OSA isn't used because heterosexual people rarely label themselves as "heterosexual".

Well I totally agree, which is why I always find it more than odd when posters seem to insist on using the term SSA.  I actually had never seen the OSA designation and it took me a minute to figure out what he was talking about.  

[LinuxGal]

Well I totally agree, which is why I always find it more than odd when posters seem to insist on using the term SSA.  I actually had never seen the OSA designation and it took me a minute to figure out what he was talking about.  

 

It sounds forensic, almost medical.  "He has ADHD, OCD, HIV, SARS, and SSA."

[california boy]

It sounds forensic, almost medical.  "He has ADHD, OCD, HIV, SARS, and SSA."

Exactly.  I think I understand why Mormons feel the need to seperate SSA with being a homosexual.  It is just a way they can be against homosexuality but still support someone who is gay and an active member.  It is just offensive to everyone else since it does sound like some kind of illness.  Of course, this practice does not seem necessary for any other classification of sin.  

[Calm]

The reason why I use it at times is that it makes for a shorthand way of specifying attraction as compared to behavior.  If I just use "homosexual" I have to include "attraction" or "behavior"…SSA is tons faster to write.  If I am talking OTOH, it is more or less as long since I say the whole thing so I usually use "homosexual attraction".  If people understood what HMSA stood for, I probably would use that.  Would that be offensive because the abbreviations make it look clinical?

 

Does LDS make us look like we have a clinical disorder?

Edited November 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[LinuxGal]

Exactly.  I think I understand why Mormons feel the need to seperate SSA with being a homosexual.  It is just a way they can be against homosexuality but still support someone who is gay and an active member.  It is just offensive to everyone else since it does sound like some kind of illness.  Of course, this practice does not seem necessary for any other classification of sin.  

 

I'm not lost, I just have EDDD: Eternal Destination Deficiency Disorder.

[PtolemyGlenn]

Lol Pop tart. Misery and relationship issues are not targeted at heterosexuals. It hits everyone of any sexuality.

Its called life. And gay and bi people come from all walks of life and have relationship issues within the same gender partner.

On a side note bi people tend to be more promiscuous.

I really dont care what people want to be. I need to focus on who I am. I really dont care who others choose to sleep with. And franklg militant homosexuals are one of the worse. They demand people accept them and want to stop anyone from having a different opinion. Kind of shows there not comfortable with themselves.

Edited November 26, 2014 by PtolemyGlenn