What Captain America Would Say to Mormons

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not at all.  It may well be, though I greatly doubt that would be in all cases.  Given my experience with those of the love who dare not speak its name yet refuses ever to shut its mouth even for a moment, I fear the "funny uncle" could never have my trust.

USU "And I was, for a couple of years, a professional dancer  ...  if you can imagine such a thing  ...  me the only straight guy in the room" 78

My very hetero brother took dance lessons from the famous 'Norma's Studio" in Bountiful, Utah when he was a pre-teen.  I'll never forget the photo of him doing the traditional Russian dance.    

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm sorry, that's completely wrong. Heterosexual men are attracted to women, not girls. Homosexual men are attracted to men, not boys. This isn't rocket science. Pedophilia is something quite separate from heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Yes, yes, and yes!

[USU78]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

There was a lot of child molestation in my wife's extended family. For that reason, I did not trust any of them to be alone with my kids. The abuse I knew about was heterosexual, but I wasn't going to make that assumption. Either way, marital status has no relation to whether one is a molester. You are the one who said same-sex marriage may constitute grooming, and yet here you are again refusing to defend that statement. 

I believe it may be the case, and I'm not refusing to defend it, just seeking to understand what it is you're after here.  I will be plain (and, hopefully, nonpugnacious):

One of the dangers I see in homosexual marriage, indeed in all normalizing of homosexual behavior as just another choice among many and, at least as presented by too much of the press and popular entertainment, indeed something to be proud of, is that the natural revulsion/horror one feels/felt upon encountering an attempt at seduction or grooming is lessened.  The weak and inexperienced become thereby easier targets for the unscrupulous' predation.  And not only that.

The recent Elijah Woods announcement reminds us that the unscrupulous predator often is powerful himself or has powerful friends.  Elijah himself had a mother looking out for him, trusting no one.  Good for her.  Assuming protection of the unscrupulous predator has become a societal norm, and that's what it looks like to me when there is a refusal to acknowledge pederasty as a homosexual phenomenon:  That refusal looks like protecting the predator.  Out of fear of being labeled hateful.  Leaving the weak and inexperienced without a protector or champion, like Elijah's very wise and laudable mom. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I believe it may be the case, and I'm not refusing to defend it, just seeking to understand what it is you're after here.  I will be plain (and, hopefully, nonpugnacious):

One of the dangers I see in homosexual marriage, indeed in all normalizing of homosexual behavior as just another choice among many and, at least as presented by too much of the press and popular entertainment, indeed something to be proud of, is that the natural revulsion/horror one feels/felt upon encountering an attempt at seduction or grooming is lessened.  The weak and inexperienced become thereby easier targets for the unscrupulous' predation.  And not only that.

The recent Elijah Woods announcement reminds us that the unscrupulous predator often is powerful himself or has powerful friends.  Elijah himself had a mother looking out for him, trusting no one.  Good for her.  Assuming protection of the unscrupulous predator has become a societal norm, and that's what it looks like to me when there is a refusal to acknowledge pederasty as a homosexual phenomenon:  That refusal looks like protecting the predator.  Out of fear of being labeled hateful.  Leaving the weak and inexperienced without a protector or champion, like Elijah's very wise and laudable mom. 

Who is not acknowledging pederasty? What a bizarre accusation. Pedophiles exist, no one is denying that. What I take issue with is your assertion that same-sex marriage may constitute grooming. I can see your loosely defined logical thread, but what you are saying is that accepting gay marriage means children will be less horrified by homosexuals and thus easier prey. That's a hell of a thread, isn't it? By that logic, heterosexual marriage makes it more likely that innocent children will fall victim to heterosexual molesters.

What am I after here? I thought it was discussion about an issue that interests me. But it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion when the other person thinks you're a liar who is attempting to cover up child molestation. As I said, I'm glad to know where you come from, but I have no interest in being treated with such contempt.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Because religionists, and Mormons in particular, are so backward and quaint?

Not at all......(perhaps on mormons side you might be a little peculiar, but no harm in it)

Edited May 24, 2016 by Atheist Mormon

[USU78]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Who is not acknowledging pederasty? What a bizarre accusation. Pedophiles exist, no one is denying that. What I take issue with is your assertion that same-sex marriage may constitute grooming. I can see your loosely defined logical thread, but what you are saying is that accepting gay marriage means children will be less horrified by homosexuals and thus easier prey. That's a hell of a thread, isn't it? By that logic, heterosexual marriage makes it more likely that innocent children will fall victim to heterosexual molesters.

What am I after here? I thought it was discussion about an issue that interests me. But it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion when the other person thinks you're a liar who is attempting to cover up child molestation. As I said, I'm glad to know where you come from, but I have no interest in being treated with such contempt.

It's buying into a false and harmful taxonomy and refusing to look reality in the face that I'm decrying here.  I don't know what your position is on the subject, as you've just been asking questions.  I haven't accused you of anything.  I've been trying to figure out what you wanted, as not everybody uses words the same way, and I believed upon posting the email you respond to hereby that I had divined it.  Hence my response, since you asked nicely.

This is a difficult subject, I know, and I sympathize, but I want to make myself absolutely clear here:  claiming pederasty to be a nonhomosexual phenomenon is foolish.  Especially when it is political gamesmanship that is at the heart of the false taxonomy:  "We'll claim lesbians and the gender-confused and the unfussy bisexuals as part of our political identity, but not the bad boys at NAMBLA, even though, historically, we did."

Thread closed. Do not use criminal acts in discussions about gays.

[cinepro]

I think if Captain America were to address the Mormons, he might say "Hey, I think it's great that you guys finally started giving black Mormon men the priesthood and letting black men and women go to your Temples.  Because when I was growing up you totally didn't do that.  I'm glad you didn't "plant yourself" on that issue!"

[ERMD]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Inflammatory much?

For a member of a church centered on family, I find it funny that you use "obscene" "abominable" and "filthy waters" to describe a marriage commitment between two consenting adults.

Also, bravo on your click bait title.

Man has declared it a marriage.  God on the other hand, has not.

That is, if you sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

[USU78]

50 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think if Captain America were to address the Mormons, he might say "Hey, I think it's great that you guys finally started giving black Mormon men the priesthood and letting black men and women go to your Temples.  Because when I was growing up you totally didn't do that.  I'm glad you didn't "plant yourself" on that issue!"

Please stay on topic or leave the thread.

Thanks!

[cinepro]

29 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Please stay on topic or leave the thread.

Thanks!

Sorry, I thought a post about "What Captain America Would Say to Mormons" would be on topic in a thread titled "What Captain America Would Say To Mormons." 

If that wasn't the case, I apologize.

[cinepro]

39 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Man has declared it a marriage.  God on the other hand, has not.

That is, if you sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

Until the issue of SSM marriage came up, was there ever any doubt about whether or not God accepted marriages that had been declared by man?  

And doesn't the Church teach that we should sustain the FP and Q12 as Prophets, Seers and Revelators who are also fallible men who make mistakes sometimes?  Because if we do believe that, it should be mentioned every single time we invoke their titles, not just when we disagree with them.

[ERMD]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Until the issue of SSM marriage came up, was there ever any doubt about whether or not God accepted marriages that had been declared by man?  

And doesn't the Church teach that we should sustain the FP and Q12 as Prophets, Seers and Revelators who are also fallible men who make mistakes sometimes?  Because if we do believe that, it should be mentioned every single time we invoke their titles, not just when we disagree with them.

God instituted marriage, but that's only if you believe that scripture stuff.  

I'll stick with sustaining them, not picking and choosing what seems to catch my fancy.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, ERMD said:

God instituted marriage, but that's only if you believe that scripture stuff.  

I'll stick with sustaining them, not picking and choosing what seems to catch my fancy.

The default mode for "believing that scripture stuff" is not fundamentalism. 

[cinepro]

26 minutes ago, ERMD said:

God instituted marriage, but that's only if you believe that scripture stuff.  

I'll stick with sustaining them, not picking and choosing what seems to catch my fancy.

That's great that God instituted marriage, but my point is that even if a man and woman visit the justice of the peace and get married in a 100% secular setting and power, He still seemed to accept it.

[ERMD]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's great that God instituted marriage, but my point is that even if a man and woman visit the justice of the peace and get married in a 100% secular setting and power, He still seemed to accept it.

That is correct.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think if Captain America were to address the Mormons, he might say "Hey, I think it's great that you guys finally started giving black Mormon men the priesthood and letting black men and women go to your Temples.  Because when I was growing up you totally didn't do that.  I'm glad you didn't "plant yourself" on that issue!"