Popular Post longview Posted June 17, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: If homophoia has a flavor, it's not salt. More luke spiritual arsenic I totally REJECT leftist attempts at intimidation by labelling as "phobic" any expressions of concern by conservatives. Terms like homophobic or islamophobic are designed to shut down the debate and whiplash the woolyheaded onto the "reservation." 9
MormonVideoGame Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've never heard anyone declare from the pulpit in a Mormon meeting that decaf coffee is OK, let alone seen a Church leader allow it. I suspect you are exaggerating. Maybe not in Utah, but I am not from Utah. Outside of Utah the cultures are different. The claim that decaf coffee is okay for Mormons is very prevelant in some US regions and other parts of the world, trust me! 48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that turning off the mic is unavailable to him as an option for fulfilling that duty. Maybe it is in church manuals or church instructions, I don't know. CFR that you can find it in the manuals 48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Some bi-sexual individuals have had fulfilling and lasting heterosexual marriages. Bi-sexual is different. We agree Bi-sexuals can have a fulfilling and lasting heterosecual marriages. Edited June 17, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
Gray Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, longview said: I totally REJECT leftist attempts at intimidation by labelling as "phobic" any expressions of concern by conservatives. Terms like homophobic or islamophobic are designed to shut down the debate and whiplash the woolyheaded onto the "reservation." Your argument is with the English language. Anti-gay doctrines fall firmly in the arena of homophobia. If you're not ashamed of the doctrines you shouldn't be afraid of the word homophobia.
USU78 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 Just now, Gray said: Your argument is with the English language. Anti-gay doctrines fall firmly in the arena of homophobia. If you're not ashamed of the doctrines you shouldn't be afraid of the word homophobia. "Homophobic" is a weapon word, nothing more. Your logic is circular and your highhorsiness unpleasant 2
Darren10 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 1:34 PM, cinepro said: CFR that earthly-homosexuals want to spend an eternity as heterosexual gods. I don't rhink anything will forced upon anyone as to what they will want. But, if earthly homosexuals or earthly heterosexuals want exaltation, what would you say they would want?
Darren10 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Gray said: Your argument is with the English language. Anti-gay doctrines fall firmly in the arena of homophobia. If you're not ashamed of the doctrines you shouldn't be afraid of the word homophobia. Maybe USU78 suffers from homophobiaphobia? USU78, do you fear homophobia? We're all friends here. You can speak. Edited June 18, 2017 by Darren10 4
Darren10 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 7 hours ago, Gray said: There's something different about a gay person saying they want to live their life in accordance with the principles of happiness, as the the little girl did, than your example of a young boy saying he wants to score with a bunch of women. It's rather more like a black person getting up in a Southern Baptist church in the 40s and saying they believe in full racial equality. A provocative and one might even say "inappropriate" statement given the beliefs of the congregants, but the right statement to make. "as the the little girl did..." The untouchable resurfaces. 2
Gray Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yet he forthrightly reported and taught what the Lord told him to say, even when it indicted him personally. I don't think it's that simple.
MormonVideoGame Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, Darren10 said: if earthly homosexuals or earthly heterosexuals want exaltation, what would you say they would want? See my previous posts Quote I have a question for you. The American Psychological Association stated, "Some report difficulty coping with intense guilt over the failure to live a virtuous life and inability to stop committing unforgivable sins, as defined by their religion." Is that good for mental health? I don't know many homosexuals that decided to remain celebate for the rest of their lives, or marry someone of the opposite sex without ending up in divorce. It is just nearly impossible to accomplish. I suspect that 99% of homosexuals just can't do it.
Gray Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Darren10 said: "as the the little girl did..." The untouchable resurfaces. Yes, you've made that argument about 5000 times. She taught true doctrines, that's really all I'm concerned with.
Gray Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, USU78 said: "Homophobic" is a weapon word, nothing more. Your logic is circular and your highhorsiness unpleasant If anyone doesn't like the descriptor, they are of course free to stop being homophobic at any time. This is not discussion. You will be removed from the thread if you continue to name call. ETA: Alrighty then. Edited June 18, 2017 by Gray
Tacenda Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Danzo said: I'm more inclined to believe the stake president was one of them. It would definitely be easier for him to do nothing. As happens all to often. What do you mean "one of them"? Were you being sarcastic? If not, so do you think he just waited and let her speak for drama's sake and then pressed the button? Sounds pretty farfetched to me.
Popular Post Flyonthewall Posted June 17, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 17, 2017 The way "Homophobia" is used is not in keeping with the way other "....phobia" words are used. It has morphed into something akin to - "If you disagree with me, you must have a phobia" This is from Wikipedia: A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, defined by a persistent fear of an object or situation.[1] The phobia typically results in a rapid onset of fear and is present for more than six months. The affected person will go to great lengths to avoid the situation or object, typically to a degree greater than the actual danger posed. If the feared object or situation cannot be avoided, the affected person will have significant distress. With blood or injury phobia, fainting may occur.[1] Agoraphobia is often associated with panic attacks.[6] Usually a person has phobias to a number of objects or situations.[1] "Homophobia", the way it is thrown about, does not fall in line with the common useage of the suffix "-phobia". To believe that homosexuality is wrong and/or immoral is not the same thing as having an irrational fear of it. Is believing fornication or adultery is wrong or immoral a type of phobia? 6
Anijen Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: Maybe not in Utah, but I am not from Utah. Outside of Utah the cultures are different. The claim that decaf coffee is okay for Mormons is very prevelant in some US regions and other parts of the world, trust me! Emphasis mine. I would disagree. I live outside of Utah, and most members know that decaf coffee is still coffee and still against the word of wisdom. It is not "very prevel[e]nt" outside of Utah, whether within in the US or outside its borders. "Trust me." I may still trust you, but when you make a claim like "decaf coffee is okay for Mormons is very prevalent" your credibility slips a little. 36 minutes ago, USU78 said: "Homophobic" is a weapon word, nothing more. USU78 is stating the truth here. The definition of homophobic has in these days has reached beyond the scope of: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. The word homophobic has evolved into a slur itself. I actually see it more as a "weapon word" (as USU78 calls it). The word; homophobic, in present times is probably used as a slur (especially with liberals) more so than the original definition was used for. Challenge; go to your Facebook or Twitter accounts and search the word homophobic and in the context it was used you will see that USU78 is in fact right on point here. Label branding such as; hater, homophobic, bigot, and racist, have became modern day adjectives. In arguing against someone you disagree with, it seems, it is still easier to brand someone a racist or homophobic than address the issue. The argumentum ad hominem fallacy is in its full exposure here. edited to add: Flyonthewall beat me too this Edited June 17, 2017 by Anijen 4
USU78 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 34 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Maybe USU78 suffers from homophobiaphobia? USUS78, do you fear homophobia? We're all friends here. You can speak. 😂 1
Tacenda Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 13 minutes ago, Anijen said: Emphasis mine. I would disagree. I live outside of Utah, and most members know that decaf coffee is still coffee and still against the word of wisdom. It is not "very prevel[e]nt" outside of Utah, whether within in the US or outside its borders. "Trust me." I may still trust you, but when you make a claim like "decaf coffee is okay for Mormons is very prevalent" your credibility slips a little. USU78 is stating the truth here. The definition of homophobic has in these days has reached beyond the scope of: having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. The word homophobic has evolved into a slur itself. I actually see it more as a "weapon word" (as USU78 calls it). The word; homophobic, in present times is probably used as a slur (especially with liberals) more so than the original definition was used for. Challenge; go to your Facebook or Twitter accounts and search the word homophobic and in the context it was used you will see that USU78 is in fact right on point here. Label branding such as; hater, homophobic, bigot, and racist, have became modern day adjectives. In arguing against someone you disagree with, it seems, it is still easier to brand someone a racist or homophobic than address the issue. The argumentum ad hominem fallacy is in its full exposure here. edited to add: Flyonthewall beat me too this When I was married in the temple my dad needed to get his recommend renewed in order to be present for it. He was a coffee drinker, but the bishop told him if he would drink decaf he could get the recommend.
Jeanne Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: When I was married in the temple my dad needed to get his recommend renewed in order to be present for it. He was a coffee drinker, but the bishop told him if he would drink decaf he could get the recommend. I think this whole thing is so silly. 1
Darren10 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 49 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, you've made that argument about 5000 times. She taught true doctrines, that's really all I'm concerned with. "She taught true doctrines" 1
california boy Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: I don't rhink anything will forced upon anyone as to what they will want. But, if earthly homosexuals or earthly heterosexuals want exaltation, what would you say they would want? Ah to share eternity with their spouse that they love just like everyone else. If they couldn't deal with being married to a woman on earth, what makes you think they could deal with that for all eternity. Sounds like hell to me.
Anijen Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Tacenda said: When I was married in the temple my dad needed to get his recommend renewed in order to be present for it. He was a coffee drinker, but the bishop told him if he would drink decaf he could get the recommend. I have seen this too. I am not saying it doesn't happen, I was just making the point that; I live outside of Utah, and as an outsider I do NOT see as a "very prevalent" attitude that we know that it is; okay to drink decaf. Little things like this are my pet peeve and I probably should just let it flow over me (like water off a duck's back), but it sometimes will suck me in and I will hastily (most of the time without thinking) respond. I have nothing against the person who goes by MormonVideoGame, and I typically tend to agree with him. To me when I see claims that are okay in little issues but are big no no's in bigger issues I usually will respond (sometimes, as I said too hastily). For example of a little issue is okay, but using the same argument with a bigger issue is wrong: Little Issue Argument: Decaf coffee is okay, yes it is still coffee, but no longer has the addictive element of caffeine, thus it is okay and does not violate the word of wisdom. Big Issue Argument (with the same logic): voluntary manslaughter is okay, yes it is still manslaughter, but no longer has the element of premeditated intent, thus it is okay Now before I get so many people yelling at me and saying; ""You just did not compare drinking coffee to murder?" Which, yeah, I kind of did, but not because I think coffee drinking is equivalent to killing someone (it is not, not even close,). I am making the point that a little issue does not make it excusable, just because it has no harm. Edited June 17, 2017 by Anijen
Danzo Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 35 minutes ago, Tacenda said: What do you mean "one of them"? Were you being sarcastic? If not, so do you think he just waited and let her speak for drama's sake and then pressed the button? Sounds pretty farfetched to me. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what is right, even when it is uncomfortable. Interupting a person speaking in church is not an easy thing to do, it is rarely done. It must have taken a lot of courage. He didn't have months to prepare for this, to rehearse and to rewrite it, he didn't have a special support group there just for the occasion. He, with little notice and knowing he would make people uncomfortable, chose to make a stand for what is right. That takes courage. 2
Darren10 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, california boy said: Ah to share eternity with their spouse that they love just like everyone else. If they couldn't deal with being married to a woman on earth, what makes you think they could deal with that for all eternity. Sounds like hell to me. No, Heavenly Father never taught to "be with the spouse that you love". If He did I am quite ignorant of thst doctrine. Could tou elucidate me? "If they couldn't deal with being married to a woman on earth, what makes you think they could deal with that for all eternity. Sounds like hell to me." Oh, I don't think heterosexuals would necessarily disagree.
thesometimesaint Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 Is this homophobia? SEE https://thinkprogress.org/texas-governor-signs-religious-freedom-lgbtq-youth-discrimination-bill-749cf6b94ec0
Flyonthewall Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 55 minutes ago, Gray said: If anyone doesn't like the descriptor, they are of course free to stop being homophobic at any time. This is not discussion. You will be removed from the thread if you continue to name call. This from Wikipedia about the term "Homophobia" : Opposition to the term homophobia People and groups have objected to the use of the term homophobia.[108][109][110] Non-neutral phrasing Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against LGBT rights opponents. Behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles state that "as [homophobia] is usually used, [it] makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve.[111] In the Journal of Applied Philosophy Gary Colwell stated that "the boundary of the term 'homophobia' is made so elastic that it can stretch around, not just phobias, but every kind of rational fear as well; and not just around every kind of fear, but also around every critical posture or idea that anyone may have about the practice of homosexuality".[112] In 2012 the Associated Press Stylebook was revised to advise against using non-clinical words with the suffix -phobia, including homophobia, in "political and social contexts." AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn said the word homophobia suggests a severe mental disorder, and that it could be substituted with "anti-gay" or similar phrasing.[113][114]The AP's decision was criticized in some media outlets, especially those in the LGBT area,[115] who argued that homophobia did not necessarily have to be interpreted in a strict clinical sense.[116][117] 1
USU78 Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Flyonthewall said: This from Wikipedia about the term "Homophobia" : Opposition to the term homophobia People and groups have objected to the use of the term homophobia.[108][109][110] Non-neutral phrasing Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against LGBT rights opponents. Behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles state that "as [homophobia] is usually used, [it] makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve.[111] In the Journal of Applied Philosophy Gary Colwell stated that "the boundary of the term 'homophobia' is made so elastic that it can stretch around, not just phobias, but every kind of rational fear as well; and not just around every kind of fear, but also around every critical posture or idea that anyone may have about the practice of homosexuality".[112] In 2012 the Associated Press Stylebook was revised to advise against using non-clinical words with the suffix -phobia, including homophobia, in "political and social contexts." AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn said the word homophobia suggests a severe mental disorder, and that it could be substituted with "anti-gay" or similar phrasing.[113][114]The AP's decision was criticized in some media outlets, especially those in the LGBT area,[115] who argued that homophobia did not necessarily have to be interpreted in a strict clinical sense.[116][117] Great find!
Recommended Posts