Gay Beehive Delivers Prepared Speech in F&T Meeting - Ends as Expected

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

fyi 

"Researchers at Binghamton University, State University of New York (SUNY) have discovered that about half of all people have a gene that makes them more vulnerable to promiscuity and cheating".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21152404

I suspect that most men who are faithful to their spouces don't have that gene.  According to Dr. Fredric Neuman,

 

There is no "gene", just honor and dishonor among married me. It is sad that everyone is always looking for something to blame for their bad behavior, no cowardly. 

[Gray]

52 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Quite so. Both are weapon words.

What do you mean by weapon words? Does that mean they're not legitimate?

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The conclusion I have from it is that people who use this term use it as a crutch because they lack ability to argue their position effectively.  Very rarely do they ever use the word against a person who clinically demonstrates the presence of a true phobia.

It doesn't really have to do with phobias anymore. It's about prejudice.

[longview]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

What do you mean by weapon words? Does that mean they're not legitimate?

How they are used are based on "illegitimate" motives.  I have already indicated to you that leftists use attack words to intimidate opponents and shut down debates.  If people in North Carolina object to the expense of special bathroom facilities, they are accused of being homophobic.  If people express concern about the glut of moslem invasion or their attempts to instill Sharia Law instead of Constitutional protections, they are derided as being islamophobic.  If people question the computer models predicting AGW (man caused global warming), they are dismissed as deniers.  If citizens question the waste seen in certain government programs, they are hounded and persecuted for being RACIST (meaning they want to hurt poor minorities).

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

What do you mean by weapon words? Does that mean they're not legitimate?

A little self-examination would be appropriate right about now

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

It doesn't really have to do with phobias anymore. It's about prejudice.

No, it's about fighting dirty

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

There is no "gene"

but it is easier for people without that gene to obey the law of chastity, perhaps much easier. 

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 It is sad that everyone is always looking for something to blame for their bad behavior, no cowardly. 

I disagree that affairs are always bad behavior. According to some psychologists affairs are sometimes (depending on the circumstances) necessary to save a marriage.

Please don't condemn people that disagree with your views. 

Dr. Douglas LaBie wrote "Here, one’s partner is permanently incapacitated, mentally and/or physically. For example, a woman’s husband had a massive stroke, from which there will be minimal recovery. She takes care of him, manages the household, and pursues her career. After about five years she realized how much she yearned for emotional and sexual intimacy. That was no longer possible with her husband. She struggled with this for some time, and sought help to understand her feelings and needs. She loved her husband, but felt very lonely. Eventually she began a relationship with someone she had known for years, himself a widower who understood her situation and ambivalence. She decided that a relationship with him was right for her. Now she felt more alive, even while understanding that some might condemn her choice." 

Dr. Michael J Formica wrote, "Oddly, what this can then provide is a sort of motivation for the revival of the primary relationship. The secondary relationship can become an engine that pushes back against the perceived stagnation of the primary relationship and revitalize the experience of that relationship. Basically, the secondary relationship becomes the spoon that stirs the pot."

So again, please don't condemn others, and I see nothing wrong with open marriages. Like Robert Smith wrote in the other thread, "Yes, we need to be tolerant of diverse lifestyles." 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

but it is easier for people without that gene to obey the law of chastity, perhaps much easier. 

I disagree that affairs are always bad behavior. According to some psychologists affairs are sometimes (depending on the circumstances) necessary to save a marriage.

Please don't condemn people that disagree with your views. 

Dr. Douglas LaBie wrote "Here, one’s partner is permanently incapacitated, mentally and/or physically. For example, a woman’s husband had a massive stroke, from which there will be minimal recovery. She takes care of him, manages the household, and pursues her career. After about five years she realized how much she yearned for emotional and sexual intimacy. That was no longer possible with her husband. She struggled with this for some time, and sought help to understand her feelings and needs. She loved her husband, but felt very lonely. Eventually she began a relationship with someone she had known for years, himself a widower who understood her situation and ambivalence. She decided that a relationship with him was right for her. Now she felt more alive, even while understanding that some might condemn her choice." 

Dr. Michael J Formica wrote, "Oddly, what this can then provide is a sort of motivation for the revival of the primary relationship. The secondary relationship can become an engine that pushes back against the perceived stagnation of the primary relationship and revitalize the experience of that relationship. Basically, the secondary relationship becomes the spoon that stirs the pot."

So again, please don't condemn others, and I see nothing wrong with open marriages. Like Robert Smith wrote in the other thread, "Yes, we need to be tolerant of diverse lifestyles." 

 

How very convenient

[Gray]

1 hour ago, longview said:

How they are used are based on "illegitimate" motives.  I have already indicated to you that leftists use attack words to intimidate opponents and shut down debates.  If people in North Carolina object to the expense of special bathroom facilities, they are accused of being homophobic.  If people express concern about the glut of moslem invasion or their attempts to instill Sharia Law instead of Constitutional protections, they are derided as being islamophobic.  If people question the computer models predicting AGW (man caused global warming), they are dismissed as deniers.  If citizens question the waste seen in certain government programs, they are hounded and persecuted for being RACIST (meaning they want to hurt poor minorities).

Yes, clearly an overblown concern then.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

A little self-examination would be appropriate right about now

I was thinking the same thing.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I think there's a great deal of difference between a 12 year old girl who plans to have a happy and healthy, faithful marriage in accordance to how God made her, and a 12-year-old boy who is planning to be unfaithful to the woman he marries. .

But does LDS doctrine distinguish between a healthy, faithful homosexual marriage and an adulterous relationship?  Is one considered morally better than the other?  As far as I know, one will get you ex-communicated much more quickly than the other.

[carbon dioxide]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But does LDS doctrine distinguish between a healthy, faithful homosexual marriage and an adulterous relationship?  Is one considered morally better than the other?  As far as I know, one will get you ex-communicated much more quickly than the other.

Both will land a person in the same place in the end.  LDS doctrine does not say that a sin is considered less if the people involved are faithful to each other in their unrighteousness. 

[Rivers]

45 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But does LDS doctrine distinguish between a healthy, faithful homosexual marriage and an adulterous relationship?  Is one considered morally better than the other?  As far as I know, one will get you ex-communicated much more quickly than the other.

I was under the impression that both types of relationships warrant swift excommunication. 

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Dr. Michael J Formica wrote, "Oddly, what this can then provide is a sort of motivation for the revival of the primary relationship. The secondary relationship can become an engine that pushes back against the perceived stagnation of the primary relationship and revitalize the experience of that relationship. Basically, the secondary relationship becomes the spoon that stirs the pot."

So again, please don't condemn others, and I see nothing wrong with open marriages. Like Robert Smith wrote in the other thread, "Yes, we need to be tolerant of diverse lifestyles." 

How do you suppose her husband feels about their open marriage? Does he know about it?  The psychologist you reference reminds me of a scripture:

2 Tim. 4:3-4  "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

I would like to always be pleasant and not condemn others.  Most of us are adults here, so we should be able to discuss topics like this as equals, nay, friends.  You made a compassionate plea "...please don't condemn others," and then a statement "I see nothing wrong with open marriages."  Then you included a quotation from Robert Smith as a supporting citation.  Does Robert actually agree with you that open marriage is a lifestyle we should be tolerant of? Are you serious?  

The idea of open marriage is offensive to many people on a deep core level. There is no nice, polite way to describe it.  Sophistry cannot overcome the common effects of adultery.  There is nothing praiseworthy in it, only heartbreak.  Christ had compassion for the woman caught in adultery, and told her "Go, and sin no more."  In other words "You know the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Now,  don't do it again."  Thats not what an open marriage is.  It is an agreement to invite a stranger into the marriage bed again and again and again (and probably expect no adverse consequences.)  I can see a secularist, with no moral reference point, speculating on the merits of open marriage.  Is this the next subject that should be tolerated in Fast and Testimony meeting?  Is this an idea that must be tolerated and discussed in this forum as if it were a viable alternative to a covenant Temple marriage?  If so, I am surprised.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

She was however already not going to church, staying home with her mother who is exmormon on .Sundays and attending an alternative LGBT youth group.

It seems unlikely she will in the future have much chance for interaction with her ward in a church setting, though being in Utah she will run into most her age at school and some leaders in the neighbourhood, most likely the bishop as he is best friends with Dad if the mother allows for that kind of interaction (there are exmormons in Utah who refuse to have any contact with any church leader even as neighbours in my experience, though most who draw lines just stipulate when acting as a church leader though from reports it makes it really awkward because many assume you are there to reconvert them, our kids have been forbidden to invite neighbours over to play even though we moved into the ward after they had left or knock on doors for fundraisers done through the Church even if for the Children's Hospital for example).

Calm, I have to say, I am a little puzzled by your answer.  Why does the church reach out to those that are inactive?  What does the mother and child's church activity level have to do with how the ward responds to this situation.  The ward can stlll be loving and kind when they do see either one of them either in or outside the church.  Her best friend is the daughter of the bishop.  That is more of a church connection than most inactive have.

And if the daughter and mother are inactive, then I find what the stake president did even more insensitive.  We usually give inactives a LOT of leeway when it comes to things they might do wrong especially in possibly not knowing all the rules of what is expected for them to do.  I find everyone's condmemnation for the mother recording this event even more insensitive.  Not everyone knows all the rules Mormons have about what to do in the chapel.  As far as I can tell, no one whispered to her that recording is not allowed in the chapel.  If this ward is never going to see the mother and child again, then really, what was the big deal in the first place?  Do we really need to make excuses for why treating someone with kindness and love is not going to work?  This just reinforces to me how freaked out Mormons are about this issue.  Of all the things an inactive member of the church could say at this pulpit that might not be appropriate, this seems so trivial.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

What do I think, I think that many, many, many choose to live celebrate lives and obey God's laws. Just like heterosexual men who struggle with lust, and are attracted to every woman whom they find attractive on the planet, but remain faithful to their wives. I once spoke to a man who felt guilty because of the feelings he had, after more discussion I asked how were things at home? He said that his wife had been molested by her father, as a result it had been 20 years since they were together. Being with and loving someone is wonderful, but it is not impossible to obey the commandments of God if this is not our burden to bare. 

Is all you are pointing out is that marriage is not all about sex.  I would totally agree with you.  I actually think it is a minor part of most strong mature marriage relationships.  I personally believe that the vast majority of marriages that are strong and loving would continue whether sex was a part of it or not.  How many would leave their spouse just because they don't have sex with them?  By far, the emotional connection between the couple is a far more accurate gauge of how a marriage is doing.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

My son has ADHD and from the information I have read those with ADHD are predisposed to more casual and impulsive activity.  If I was to accept the testimony of this girl, God has made him perfect so I should just encourage him to be impulsive and do whatever he wants.  God loves him and that is enough.  

For some reason your post is the one that has just put me over the top.  This statement is not directed solely at you.  It is directed at all those who have gone on for 25 pages attacking this young 12 year old girl for saying "God made me perfect just the way I am."  Guess what SHE IS RIGHT.  Being gay is not some disease like ADHD that you can pop a pill and medicate.  Being gay is not like some guy that wants to marry multiple wives.  Being gay is a HUMAN condition.  Some people are gay.  They are attracted to the same sex.  They don't feel like they are damaged good  just because they are gay.  They feel like they are PERFECTLY fine and healthy humans.  Humans still capable of having dreams and hopes.  Humans that want to find that person to share their life with.  Humans perfectly capable of having healthy relationships.  Humans that feel just because they are gay is no reason to be forced to live how straight people live their lives.  Attack, attack attack.  This girl is 12 years old for heavens sake.  She said what was in her heart.  Which I might add is not that much different than any other 12 year old or 20 year old or 50 year old. We all seek happiness in this life.  We all want fulfilling and emotionally whole relationships.  Every parent wants that for their kid.  She is gay.  Her relationships and hopes are going to be different than yours.  It is HER choice how she lives her life.  

After 25 pages, the biggest conclusion I have come to is that this 12 year old girl should get as far away from the Mormon church as she possibly can.  They don't like what she has to say. They don't like the idea of her getting married and finding happiness in this life. They look at her being gay as some kind of disease that is far from perfect.  If she doesn't fit into their precious mold, then all hell breaks loose.  Walk away.  Walk away  Walk away.  That message is loud and clear.  I hope she listens to all of you.  She has no right to hope for a happy and fulfilling life in the Mormon church.  She is GAY.  We don't allow gays to have happy and fulfilling lives in the Mormon Church.  We don't even allow 12 year old children saying they want to find happiness in this life.  I hope she reads this thread and finds out exactly what Mormons think of someone that is gay.  

Edited June 18, 2017 by california boy

[MormonVideoGame]

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

The idea of open marriage is offensive to many people on a deep core level. There is no nice, polite way to describe it.  

Polygamy is an open marriage, our prophets practiced polygamy, but many in the 19th century didn't tolerate that. 

An open marriage is an agreement, there is no dishonesty, deception, or cheating.  

Ever heard of "Live and Let Live"? Do you believe in religious freedom? 

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

 Is this an idea that must be tolerated and discussed in this forum as if it were a viable alternative to a covenant Temple marriage?  If so, I am surprised.

It was Scott that starting talking about polygamy, not me. I simply pointed out that there is nothing wrong with open marriages

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

 Is this the next subject that should be tolerated in Fast and Testimony meeting?  

A lot of subjects here are not appropriate for sacrament meeting. 

8 hours ago, california boy said:

  What does the mother and child's church activity level have to do with how the ward responds to this situation.  The ward can stlll be loving and kind when they do see either one of them either in or outside the church.  Her best friend is the daughter of the bishop.  That is more of a church connection than most inactive have.

And if the daughter and mother are inactive, then I find what the stake president did even more insensitive.  We usually give inactives a LOT of leeway when it comes to things they might do wrong especially in possibly not knowing all the rules of what is expected for them to do.  I find everyone's condmemnation for the mother recording this event even more insensitive.  Not everyone knows all the rules Mormons have about what to do in the chapel. 

Exactly!  Like Robert said in the other thread, "I agree, and see little harm in letting the girl have her say." 

poster removed: repeated inflammatory off-topic responses

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Calm, I have to say, I am a little puzzled by your answer.  Why does the church reach out to those that are inactive?  What does the mother and child's church activity level have to do with how the ward responds to this situation.  The ward can stlll be loving and kind when they do see either one of them either in or outside the church.  Her best friend is the daughter of the bishop.  That is more of a church connection than most inactive have.

And if the daughter and mother are inactive, then I find what the stake president did even more insensitive.  We usually give inactives a LOT of leeway when it comes to things they might do wrong especially in possibly not knowing all the rules of what is expected for them to do.  I find everyone's condmemnation for the mother recording this event even more insensitive.  Not everyone knows all the rules Mormons have about what to do in the chapel.  As far as I can tell, no one whispered to her that recording is not allowed in the chapel.  If this ward is never going to see the mother and child again, then really, what was the big deal in the first place?  Do we really need to make excuses for why treating someone with kindness and love is not going to work?  This just reinforces to me how freaked out Mormons are about this issue.  Of all the things an inactive member of the church could say at this pulpit that might not be appropriate, this seems so trivial.

Ditto

[Meerkat]

20 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Polygamy is an open marriage, our prophets practiced polygamy, but many in the 19th century didn't tolerate that. 

An open marriage is an agreement, there is no dishonesty, deception, or cheating.  

Ever heard of "Live and Let Live"? Do you believe in religious freedom? 

It was Scott that starting talking about polygamy, not me. I simply pointed out that there is nothing wrong with open marriages

A lot of subjects here are not appropriate for sacrament meeting. 

Exactly!  Like Robert said in the other thread, "I agree, and see little harm in letting the girl have her say." 

I have reconsidered my earlier response to your comment. Actually, polygamy is marriage, not random extramarital affairs, which by definition constitute adultery.   

Edited June 19, 2017 by Meerkat

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

I think there's a great deal of difference between a 12 year old girl who plans to have a happy and healthy, faithful marriage in accordance to how God made her, and a 12-year-old boy who is planning to be unfaithful to the woman he marries. .

You think that because of your personal bias. The fact is that advocacy of neither position would be appropriate or welcome from the pulpit at a Mormon worship service. But you want your bias to be privileged over someone else's, even though neither is consistent with the position of the Church of Jesus Christ. It's a manifestation of entitlement mentality. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Polygamy is an open marriage, our prophets practiced polygamy, but many in the 19th century didn't tolerate that. 

An open marriage is an agreement, there is no dishonesty, deception, or cheating.  

Ever heard of "Live and Let Live"? Do you believe in religious freedom? 

It was Scott that starting talking about polygamy, not me. I simply pointed out that there is nothing wrong with open marriages

A lot of subjects here are not appropriate for sacrament meeting. 

Exactly!  Like Robert said in the other thread, "I agree, and see little harm in letting the girl have her say." 

You should get your facts straight. I didn't start talking about polygamy. Someone else raised it as an analogy of something --- like gay marriage -- the advocacy of which would not be tolerated at the pulpit of a sacrament meeting. All I did was point out the hypocrisy of those who demand tolerance for the one thing, because it suits their bias, but not the other. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Homophobia (as it is commonly used) is the equivalent to the term racism. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

11 hours ago, Gray said:

The second use is I think falling out of favor. Gay panic isn't so much of a thing anymore.

As I pointed out earlier, what makes it a weapon word is the presupposition, inherent in the definition of phobia, that one to whom it is applied, is irrational. You simply can't call someone homophobic without hostile intent. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

But does LDS doctrine distinguish between a healthy, faithful homosexual marriage and an adulterous relationship?  Is one considered morally better than the other?  As far as I know, one will get you ex-communicated much more quickly than the other.

I'm talking about right and wrong, not necessarily what current or former doctrines support.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You think that because of your personal bias. The fact is that advocacy of neither position would be appropriate or welcome from the pulpit at a Mormon worship service. But you want your bias to be privileged over someone else's, even though neither is consistent with the position of the Church of Jesus Christ. It's a manifestation of entitlement mentality. 

You think that because of your personal bias. Isn't that so?

The Spirit manifest plainly that gay marriage is holy before God, just as straight marriage is. That is my personal bias, but I feel deep down in my bones that it's true.

I agree that this truth isn't currently welcome in conservative churches like the LDS church, just as certain truths we take for granted today weren't welcome in conservative churches a generation ago.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Gray