God May Forgive...But the LDS Data Base Never Will

[Calm]

 

Quote

 

Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.

 3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

 4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

 5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominableabove all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

 6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

 7 And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good.

 

Given the "she did steal away the hearts of many", she was at the very least a professional prostitute and quite possibly given the time and place the prostitution was involved in pagan rituals where the sexual activity is part of the worship of false gods, fertility rites etc.  Participating in such activity would be an active denial of God himself and would to a great extent cause huge obstacles among those they were trying to convert by his example as Alma pointed out what happened among the Zoramites he was teaching.  Isabel may even be one of the false idols that the Zoramites worshipped, a fertility goddess.  The language about her and the context suggest this.  

 

So more than likely a bit more than taking off early off of an mission and having sex with a nonmember.  More like leaving his mission and going off to worship another god with ritual sex.

I know this is not how it is taught in the Church.  I think that can cause significant problems myself.

Tell me if the font size is screwing stuff up please

Edited February 15, 2016 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

On February 15, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Kemara said:

Cricket? You direct a post to me about cricket after avoiding every issue I raised on this thread, after refusing to answer my questions, after refusing to provide evidence for your claims, after refusing to acknowledge when your arguments are refuted, after repeatedly acting in a dishonest and disingenuous manner, after directing discrimination of a particularly vile sought at our gay brothers and sisters, you want to bring up cricket. Mate, you are a fair dinkum, ridgey didge, true blue, fair suck of the sav, throw another shrimp on the barbie, dinky-di, under arm bowling, drongo - get your head out of the dunny ya mug.

Hey, who humiliated Australia in the most recent Chappell-Hadlee Trophy series? Who absolutely smashed the Kangaroos at the most recent ANZAC Rugby League Test? Who completely outclassed the Wallabies as the last Rugby World Cup?  And you want to gloat about a single cricket match when the series isn't even complete yet? Your a bigger mug than I thought! You might find some consolation in the fact that Australia has a good chance against New Zealand in the years inaugural Pigeon racing contest. 

 

  

Haha, I'm no piker mate, and I'm only replying cuz you're so bloody dag.  Glad I was able to get under your skin, knew cricket would bring out the true you. Modies don't know all the insults you threw my way or you'd be banned.  Fortunately I'm chill wish you no I'll. Cheers 

 

luv how kiwi's have such an inferiority complex to Oz

Edited February 16, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Kemara]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Haha, I'm no piker mate, and I'm only replying cuz you're so bloody dag.  Glad I was able to get under your skin, knew cricket would bring out the true you. Modies don't know all the insults you threw my way or you'd be banned.  Fortunately I'm chill wish you no I'll. Cheers 

 

luv how kiwi's have such an inferiority complex to Oz

Get under my skin? Good grief Wizard you're dreaming mate, dreaming and wishful thinking, If you don't know when you're being mocked for being such a massively dishonest, disingenuous pillick then describing you as mind numbingly stupid is an understatement for the ages.. Modies don't seem to mind lying bigots such as yourself so I don't see why they would be too concerned with a bit of aussie slang aye cobber, especially since all I was doing was giving everyone the drum.

Wasn't it you who said you were done with me? Can nothing you say be believed at all? People like you are so predictable, I knew you would go back on your word which is why I said that I had a sneaking suspicion that I wasn't done with you yet. Isn't it boring being so predictable and easy to read?

Finally, or perhaps not finally since you are obviously not over your fatal attraction of me despite your declaration of being done with me, Kiwi's cannot possibly have an inferiority complex to Aussie when we are so clearly and so easily smashing you at everything except the odd cricket test. When you have the same amount of silverware as we do then come back. Until then, know your place on the sporting totem pole...firmly beneath Kiwi feet   

Edited February 16, 2016 by Kemara

[rodheadlee]

On 2/11/2016 at 3:08 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

I know I've been a somewhat active poster today...but I've had a lot on my mind.  I'm curious what others think about the church policy of placing an "*" asterisk on the membership records of every member who has confessed to some sin that the church considers grievous. Now don't get me wrong, a child molester should have appropriate restrictions placed in their records...but what of the young mad who has a homosexual experience or the young woman who has a lesbian encounter or the high priest who has an affair...BUT REPENTS...Why does the church place an asterisk on their membership that remains until the day they die?  Why not after full reinstatement can't this Mark be removed?  Or why is it needed in the first place?  anyone have insight into this question?  thanks

Because we are men not Gods we can forgive but we can't forget. Step out on your wife, she may forgive you but she will NEVER forget and she will put a little asterisk next to your name.

Edited February 16, 2016 by rodheadlee

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, Kemara said:

If you don't know when you're being mocked for being such a massively dishonest, disingenuous pillick then describing you as mind numbingly stupid is an understatement for the ages.. Modies don't seem to mind lying bigots such as yourself so I don't see why they would be too concerned with a bit of aussie slang aye cobber, especially since all I was doing was giving everyone the drum.

Wow, you're really a class act (not).  Way over the line....

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, Kemara said:

yt under my skin? Good grief Wizard you're dreaming mate, dreaming and wishful thinking, If you don't know when you're being mocked for being such a massively dishonest, disingenuous pillick then describing you as mind numbingly stupid is an understatement for the ages.. Modies don't seem to mind lying bigots such as yourself so I don't see why they would be too concerned with a bit of aussie slang aye cobber, especially since all I was doing was giving everyone the drum.

Wasn't it you who said you were done with me? Can nothing you say be believed at all? People like you are so predictable, I knew you would go back on your word which is why I said that I had a sneaking suspicion that I wasn't done with you yet. Isn't it boring being so predictable and easy to read?

Finally, or perhaps not finally since you are obviously not over your fatal attraction of me despite your declaration of being done with me, Kiwi's cannot possibly have an inferiority complex to Aussie when we are so clearly and so easily smashing you at everything except the odd cricket test. When you have the same amount of silverware as we do then come back. Until then, know your place on the sporting totem pole...firmly beneath Kiwi feet   

OK Here's a compliment:  I made the above post then thought to myself...I'm only throwing petrol on the flames..takin it to his level, thought twice and deleted the post.  It was up all of 58 seconds*.. "Wow you're fast"  Listen, were both just going to disagree on many things, I'm sure your a great guy, most Kiwis are, easy going laid back friendly sods.  To be honest, I'm rather impressed with your grasp of Aussie slang...good on yeah mate.  You could be a fair dinkum, dinkie di ocker.

Anyway, I'm hoping that a lot of what you're saying is just your internet Haka and that you're really a nice guy in person anyhoo, tada mate, cheers and hooray

*  Well drat...I pushed delete and signed off but now I see that its still up...oh well...sorry I meant no harm...I'll prepare myself for the verbal tsunami headed my way

 

PS: Happy to buy you a stuby any time you're may way mate

Edited February 16, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Ahab]

On 2/15/2016 at 8:01 AM, Gray said:

Sex outside of marriage is fornication. If we take the BOM at face value, that's the sin next to murder. Why would you think it would be worse than that if done by gay people? Is there just some kind of need to see gay people as lower on the totem pole than straight people?

Sex between people of the same sex is always wrong, even if legally and lawfully married.

Sex between a man and a woman is wrong only if they are not legally and lawfully married to each other. 

So that's what makes same sex sexual relations worse than opposite sex sexual relations, since even marriage can't "fix" the problem. 

Just add up the number of sins or problems. 

1. Same sex sexual relations.

2. Not being legally and lawfully married. 

Same sex "couplings" will always be wrong on both counts, 1 and 2, while opposite sex couples will only be wrong if condition 2 is not met.

You've now had this explained to you a number of times in different ways and you should now be able to understand this even if you do not agree. 

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sex between people of the same sex is always wrong, even if legally and lawfully married.

Sex between a man and a woman is wrong only if they are not legally and lawfully married to each other. 

So that's what makes same sex sexual relations worse than opposite sex sexual relations, since even marriage can't "fix" the problem. 

Just add up the number of sins or problems. 

1. Same sex sexual relations.

2. Not being legally and lawfully married. 

Same sex "couplings" will always be wrong on both counts, 1 and 2, while opposite sex couples will only be wrong if condition 2 is not met.

You've now had this explained to you a number of times in different ways and you should now be able to understand this even if you do not agree. 

That's not really relevant, because we're talking about relationships outside of marriage. You can't say straight fornication isn't so bad because it could be done within marriage. It's outside of marriage, by definition. Otherwise we're not talking about fornication. 

But that sounds like a great justification for fornication. How well do you think it would go down if you shared it in Sunday school?

[Kemara]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Wow, you're really a class act (not).  Way over the line....

When exactly did you become cool with repeated, deliberate and demonstrable acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, avoidance of issues, disingenuousness,  refusal to answer requests for evidence, refusal to retract statements that are demonstrably incorrect, refusal to acknowledge when one's argument has been proven wrong on the exact terms set by the refuser,repeated cheap shots, referring to someone as a discriminatory bigot...etc etc? I only ask because you didn't take the great and powerful Wizard to task for those things...is that conduct a class act in your world? Is that conduct within the lines of your world?

By all means, take me to task if you feel so inclined, I genuinely support you 100% in doing that, but for goodness sake be consistent and apply it across the board. If anyone wants to come at me I am all good with that but don't think for one second that its going to be one way traffic and don't complain that when someone pulls a knife on me that I pull a shotgun.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That's not really relevant, because we're talking about relationships outside of marriage. You can't say straight fornication isn't so bad because it could be done within marriage. It's outside of marriage, by definition. Otherwise we're not talking about fornication. 

But that sounds like a great justification for fornication. How well do you think it would go down if you shared it in Sunday school?

Not being married is only part of the problem,  and since marriage doesn't fix a same sex sexual relations issue the additional problem should be apparent to you.

If it's not apparent to you then I can't really say anything else to help you to see it.

[Kemara]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

OK Here's a compliment:  I made the above post then thought to myself...I'm only throwing petrol on the flames..takin it to his level, thought twice and deleted the post.  It was up all of 58 seconds*.. "Wow you're fast"  Listen, were both just going to disagree on many things, I'm sure your a great guy, most Kiwis are, easy going laid back friendly sods.  To be honest, I'm rather impressed with your grasp of Aussie slang...good on yeah mate.  You could be a fair dinkum, dinkie di ocker.

Anyway, I'm hoping that a lot of what you're saying is just your internet Haka and that you're really a nice guy in person anyhoo, tada mate, cheers and hooray

*  Well drat...I pushed delete and signed off but now I see that its still up...oh well...sorry I meant no harm...I'll prepare myself for the verbal tsunami headed my way

 

PS: Happy to buy you a stuby any time you're may way mate

Taking it to my level? Lololol, you're trying to revise history, go back and have another look its all in black and white, try to be honest with yourself about it, and don't complain that I am better at a game that you started.  

Spent 20 years all over Aussie - Perth (West Coast Eagles fan), Kalgoorlie, Melbourne, Townsville, Cairns and a few small towns you probably never heard of, I was considered an honorary Queenslander among my friends due to my being related to King Wally...loved my time there, love the place...20 years can give you a handle on ocker slang.

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not being married is only part of the problem,  and since marriage doesn't fix a same sex sexual relations issue the additional problem should be apparent to you.

If it's not apparent to you then I can't really say anything else to help you to see it.

Again, the marriage thing is irrelevant. The subject isn't marriage - by definition it's not that. Sex outside of marriage is fornication either way. 

[Johnnie Cake]

45 minutes ago, Kemara said:

When exactly did you become cool with repeated, deliberate and demonstrable acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, avoidance of issues, disingenuousness,  refusal to answer requests for evidence, refusal to retract statements that are demonstrably incorrect, refusal to acknowledge when one's argument has been proven wrong on the exact terms set by the refuser,repeated cheap shots, referring to someone as a discriminatory bigot...etc etc? 

Again why so much vitriol?  Why take such an inflexible dogmatic position? Why make such a toxic untrue statement as "repeated, deliberate and demonstrable acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, avoidance of issues, disingenuousness,  refusal to answer requests for evidence, refusal to retract statements that are demonstrably incorrect, refusal to acknowledge when one's argument has been proven wrong on the exact terms set by the refuser,repeated cheap shots, [this next part is true, I did call you a bigot] referring to someone as a discriminatory bigot...etc etc?"

I've tried to put this all behind us and move on while you keep insisting on doubling down...to what end? If there is some point that you feel needs my attention? If so  please articulate it and I will respond with my opinion...which you can either accept or reject...but again to what end...you disagree with my foundational premise that gay should be treated equally, you don't.  Fair enough we disagree

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

When exactly did you become cool with repeated, deliberate and demonstrable acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, avoidance of issues, disingenuousness,  refusal to answer requests for evidence, refusal to retract statements that are demonstrably incorrect, refusal to acknowledge when one's argument has been proven wrong on the exact terms set by the refuser,repeated cheap shots, referring to someone as a discriminatory bigot...etc etc? I only ask because you didn't take the great and powerful Wizard to task for those things...is that conduct a class act in your world? Is that conduct within the lines of your world?

Nope.  But I've seen none of that from anyone else here on this thread.

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

If anyone wants to come at me I am all good with that but don't think for one second that its going to be one way traffic and don't complain that when someone pulls a knife on me that I pull a shotgun.

Ummmm, ok....LOL.  How old are you?  

Resorting to name calling isn't very effective when you're having a discussion.  But please continue....  

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Again, the marriage thing is irrelevant. The subject isn't marriage - by definition it's not that. Sex outside of marriage is fornication either way. 

Yes but the opposite sex thing is not a problem, whereas the same sex thing always is.

In other words it is always right and good to want opposite sex sex,  meaning that type of sexual relations,  but it is never right and good to want same sex sex because that type of sexual relations is an abomination of how sexual relations should be.

And I say this as someone who sees both sexes as being sexually attractive.  Men as well as women are indeed both sexually attractive creatures. But to want same sex sexual relations is to want something that is not good because the only good kind of sexual relations is the kind involving opposite sex partners. 

You don't really need someone to spell this out for you in such specific detail, do you?

Edited February 16, 2016 by Ahab
typo

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes but the opposite sex thing is not a problem, whereas the same sex thing always is.

In other words it is always right and good to want opposite sex sex,  meaning that type of sexual relations,  but it is never right and good to want same sex sex because that type of sexual relations is an abomination of how sexual relations should be.

And I say this as someone who sees both sexes as being sexually attractive.  Men as well as women are indeed both sexually attractive creatures. But to want same sex sexual relations is to want something that is not good because the only good kind of sexual relations is the kind involving opposite sex partners. 

You don't really need someone to spell this out for you in such specific detail, do you?

You keep bringing up contexts for the relationships that are out of scope of the discussion. There is a context where killing someone is permissible (self-defense). But you can't use that context to say that premeditated murder isn't so bad. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Gray

[Kemara]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Again why so much vitriol?  Why take such an inflexible dogmatic position? Why make such a toxic untrue statement as "repeated, deliberate and demonstrable acts of dishonesty, misrepresentation, avoidance of issues, disingenuousness,  refusal to answer requests for evidence, refusal to retract statements that are demonstrably incorrect, refusal to acknowledge when one's argument has been proven wrong on the exact terms set by the refuser,repeated cheap shots, [this next part is true, I did call you a bigot] referring to someone as a discriminatory bigot...etc etc?"

I've tried to put this all behind us and move on while you keep insisting on doubling down...to what end? If there is some point that you feel needs my attention? If so  please articulate it and I will respond with my opinion...which you can either accept or reject...but again to what end...you disagree with my foundational premise that gay should be treated equally, you don't.  Fair enough we disagree

 

Vitriol and dogmatic? It seems to me that you have again used words that you don't know the meaning of to characterise me and/or my post. Please show me where there is malice in my perfectly accurate description of your conduct on this thread. Please show me how my descriptions of your conduct are opinion expressed as fact and not actually facts. You have demonstrably done exactly what I have described, each and every one of them. I have laid it our clearly and succinctly on a number of occasions now. You're the one acting in this manner, so what's the beef with me describing it?

I would dispute that you have tried to put this behind us because you have repeatedly come back for more even after declaring that you were done with me. It was over and done with and then out of the blue and completely off topic you bring up cricket! Why? To what end? What were you hoping to achieve? It certainly wasn't the hope of putting things behind us so please stop with the ongoing dishonesty. The simple fact is that you brought it, I finished it, you didn't like it and here we are...don't complain. 

I thought my last response to you was a good way to end our discussion on this thread by telling you how much I loved Australia. But no, you just couldn't leave it alone and you were so committed to carrying it on that you actually responded to a post that was not even directed at you. Are these the actions of a person trying to put things behind us? No, they are the actions of person trying to do the very opposite...that's cool by me, you can keep setting them up just please don't moan about the way I keep knocking them down.

I have already articulated, very clearly, very specifically and in a very succinct manner everything that I feel needs your attention. You have ignored every single one of them.

And finally, you end your post to me by again misrepresenting my position.  Stone the crows.

Now if you want to get back onto the actual topic then that is cool. You can start by answering all my questions, responding to all my requests and addressing my posts in context and without your modus operandi so far. If you want to keep carrying on with the latest topic of discussion that you have introduced (you being so innocent and me being so naughty) then that's cool too, but I suggest we carry it on by private message so as not to clog up this threads discussion, which is still going, and not divert from its actual topic. If you want to do neither then that is cool too. Up to you cobber.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

You keep bringing up contexts for the relationships that are out of scope of the discussion. There is a context where killing someone is permissible (self-defense). But you can't use that context to say that premeditated murder isn't so bad. 

This isn't about killing so don't be bringing that up. 

I've been talking about how same sex sex is not only different from opposite sex sex but is also a bad thing, whereas opposite sex sex is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Yes the opposite sex sex does need to be limited to only consensual sex within the bounds of legal and lawful marriage, but still in and of itself there is nothing wrong with opposite sex sex. 

Whereas same sex sex is always bad even if those involved are consenting and legally and lawfully married.

How much more limited do you want to make this discussion?  I'm only trying to say enough to cover all of the bases on this issue. 

 

 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

This isn't about killing so don't be bringing that up. 

I've been talking about how same sex sex is not only different from opposite sex sex but is also a bad thing, whereas opposite sex sex is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Yes the opposite sex sex does need to be limited to only consensual sex within the bounds of legal and lawful marriage, but still in and of itself there is nothing wrong with opposite sex sex. 

Whereas same sex sex is always bad even if those involved are consenting and legally and lawfully married.

How much more limited do you want to make this discussion?  I'm only trying to say enough to cover all of the bases on this issue. 

 

 

Again, you have to look for contexts that are off topic to justify opposite sex fornication. I don't think your argument is valid. The question is whether or not one is worse than the other. There is no doctrinal justification for thinking one is worse than the other. Fornication is considered to be a very serious sin. Any kind of different context you care to put it into makes it no longer about fornication.

You keep wanting to talk about marriage, but that's not the subject at all. 

[Kemara]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Nope.  But I've seen none of that from anyone else here on this thread.

Ummmm, ok....LOL.  How old are you?  

Resorting to name calling isn't very effective when you're having a discussion.  But please continue....  

You haven't? Then please re-read the thread from the beginning, you simply cannot miss it.

Old enough to not be put off by keyboard warriors. Old enough to not be affected by silly attempts at shaming me. How old are you that you thought something like that would work? 

So you weren't having an effective discussion with me when you referred to me as classless? So what do you hope to achieve by having an ineffective discussion with me?

Edited February 17, 2016 by Kemara

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Vitriol and dogmatic? It seems to me that you have again used words that you don't know the meaning of to characterise me and/or my post. Please show me where there is malice in my perfectly accurate description of your conduct on this thread. Please show me how my descriptions of your conduct are opinion expressed as fact and not actually facts. You have demonstrably done exactly what I have described, each and every one of them. I have laid it our clearly and succinctly on a number of occasions now. You're the one acting in this manner, so what's the beef with me describing it?

I would dispute that you have tried to put this behind us because you have repeatedly come back for more even after declaring that you were done with me. It was over and done with and then out of the blue and completely off topic you bring up cricket! Why? To what end? What were you hoping to achieve? It certainly wasn't the hope of putting things behind us so please stop with the ongoing dishonesty. The simple fact is that you brought it, I finished it, you didn't like it and here we are...don't complain. 

I thought my last response to you was a good way to end our discussion on this thread by telling you how much I loved Australia. But no, you just couldn't leave it alone and you were so committed to carrying it on that you actually responded to a post that was not even directed at you. Are these the actions of a person trying to put things behind us? No, they are the actions of person trying to do the very opposite...that's cool by me, you can keep setting them up just please don't moan about the way I keep knocking them down.

I have already articulated, very clearly, very specifically and in a very succinct manner everything that I feel needs your attention. You have ignored every single one of them.

And finally, you end your post to me by again misrepresenting my position.  Stone the crows.

Now if you want to get back onto the actual topic then that is cool. You can start by answering all my questions, responding to all my requests and addressing my posts in context and without your modus operandi so far. If you want to keep carrying on with the latest topic of discussion that you have introduced (you being so innocent and me being so naughty) then that's cool too, but I suggest we carry it on by private message so as not to clog up this threads discussion, which is still going, and not divert from its actual topic. If you want to do neither then that is cool too. Up to you cobber.

You may not believe me...but I really like you (no I'm not gay) Outside of MD&D we could be mates...but why take such fixed positions and why state your opinions are fact, when they're only your opinions? I want to have a convo with ya mate and maybe I'll caulk it up to I/M-ology but something is getting lost in translation.  I'm happy to address any point you feel you've won in this thread...just point to one, any one and lets begin anew

Edited February 16, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Kemara said:

Old enough to not be put off by key-board warriors.  

"Key-board warriors"?  LOL

I like you    Hilarious!!!

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Again, you have to look for contexts that are off topic to justify opposite sex fornication. I don't think your argument is valid. The question is whether or not one is worse than the other. There is no doctrinal justification for thinking one is worse than the other. Fornication is considered to be a very serious sin. Any kind of different context you care to put it into makes it no longer about fornication.

You keep wanting to talk about marriage, but that's not the subject at all. 

Seems like fornication is the key word for you so I'll try using that word to see if it helps you to see the point I've been making.

For our discussion I'll say there are 2 types of fornication.  There are actually more than 2 but our discussion focuses on 2 types: 

1. same sex fornication

vs

2. opposite sex fornication

Both are bad, but type #1 is worse than type #2 because type #1 involves same sex sex which is always bad whereas type #2 involves opposite sex sex which is not bad in itself, meaning opposite sex sex is not bad in itself.

As fornication yes opposite sex sex is bad, but if it were not fornication or involving anything else that is bad then there would be nothing wrong with having opposite sex sex.

Is that clear enough for you now?

Or do you not know that same sex sex is always bad?

 

[Kemara]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

Again, you have to look for contexts that are off topic to justify opposite sex fornication. I don't think your argument is valid. The question is whether or not one is worse than the other. There is no doctrinal justification for thinking one is worse than the other. Fornication is considered to be a very serious sin. Any kind of different context you care to put it into makes it no longer about fornication.

You keep wanting to talk about marriage, but that's not the subject at all. 

In the context of the annotation policy why is the question necessarily about one being worse than the other? The annotation policy treats two different things differently. So shouldn't the question be about difference and not about which, or if one, is worse?  You are conflating two acts, that have significant differences and in a sense denying these differences and demanding that they be considered exactly the same. This discussion itself is talking about homosexuals and heterosexuals as being two subsets of our species. We do this because they are different. We do not divide up heterosexual sex in terms of nationality, religion, socio-economic condition etc. because all heterosexual sex is heterosexual, hence it doesn't need qualifiers. There is a qualifier in relation to homo and hetero because they are different.

You are taking homosexual sex and heterosexual sex and calling them both fornication but that doesn't make sense. If you want to compartmentalise these things accurately you should not be lumping them together. You cant lump them together because they are different. In order to be accurate and to hold to the true meaning of the terms you would need to classify them as homosexual fornication and the other as heterosexual fornication. Your position requires that both of these distinctly different acts be considered the same but you have no logical or reasonable basis to exclude their differences. You are relying on a position that all sex is sex. This is factually and empirically incorrect in the context of comparing homo to hetero sex. As such they should be treated differently and they are treated differently.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Kemara

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

"Key-board warriors"?  LOL

I like you    Hilarious!!!

Cool!

One thing though, I took the time to respond to your post and answer your question. How come you didn't answer mine? We cant have an effective discussion if I am the only one answering questions, or was is not your intention to have an effective discussion? In case you missed it....

"So you weren't having an effective discussion with me when you referred to me as classless? So what do you hope to achieve by having an ineffective discussion with me?"

Thanks in advance.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Kemara