Alleged Mormon rudeness about homosexuality

[Bobbieaware]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But you stated this earlier in the thread:

"What is under discussion here is use of the word in association with homosexuality."

 

How can there be gay marriage without its antecedent, homosexuality? Homosexuality is the one and only necessary element to make a marriage a gay marriage. What I see going on here is silly semantics 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

How can there be gay marriage without its antecedent, homosexuality? Homosexuality is the one and only necessary element to make a marriage gay marriage. What I see going on here is silly semantics 

I agree.

That's exactly the game Scott seems to be playing.

Edited July 13, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

How can there be gay marriage without its antecedent, homosexuality? Homosexuality is the one and only necessary element to make a marriage gay marriage. What I see going on here is silly semantics 

I agree.  Scott should stop with the semantics.  

Edited July 13, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So if I understand you correctly, you believe Mormons are rude because of what you think is "in their hearts," even if they never say or write it.

I don't think they are rude, just the opposite, except for a few on this board who let it all out. Maybe there are a few LDS that think the gay lifestyle is an abomination but because they aren't rude, they don't tell someone that way. Maybe I'm confused at the OP Scott. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, I just went back into the Search function to see if Boolean Operators would help...I think I might not be very good at using such operators...or the board software isn't very good...or both.

I've not found the board search software to be very good.

 

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

How can there be gay marriage without its antecedent, homosexuality? Homosexuality is the one and only necessary element to make a marriage a gay marriage. What I see going on here is silly semantics 

The Bible's condemnation of fornication between men and women is not the same thing as a condemnation of men and women getting married, right?

Edited July 13, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well it's just a term.  There are plenty of ways to express the same idea that the term conveys. 

But that seems to be the word of choice when one wants to express unmitigated disapproval of homosexuality -- at least that's what I gather from my Google search. So Mormons would in theory be just as apt to use it as anyone else -- if they were indeed wont to be rude.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

That's exactly the game Scott seems to be playing.

I reject your accusation. This is a good-faith discussion.

If you regard it as mere "game-playing," I invite you to withdraw now.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

No, I'm not asserting that at all. I'm not the type to try to guess what is on a person's heart. That is between the person and God. I'm recommending that we be mindful of our emotions and thoughts so as not to bring divine condemnation upon ourselves. I know we'll mess up along the way and that is why we need the Parakletos.

I have no quarrel with this. But I do with Tacenda's suggestion about her ability to know what's in someone's "heart" and to thus condemn such a person.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  Scott should stop with the semantics.  

I'll give you the same invitation I just gave HJW.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that seems to be the word of choice when one wants to express unmitigated disapproval of homosexuality -- at least that's what I gather from my Google search. So Mormons would in theory be just as apt to use it as anyone else -- if they were indeed wont to be rude.

I disagree.  There are tons of things one could say if he/she is want to be rude.  Abomination is just one.  And let's face it it's a term we don't use much these days. 

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

After Calm identified it as one word that might be deemed a rude expression if one applies it to gay marriage, I got curious about how frequently Mormons thus apply the term. So I used  the only quick metric I could think of at the moment, which was to do a Google search.

Yes, and evidently it is not used much; I'm wondering what the significance of that is.

Because the offensiveness of the word is so subjective, and a message board allows both the user to clarify his intent in using it and the hearer to clarify why it is offensive (when it's an issue), I'm wondering what conclusion to draw about its frequency of use among Mormons relative, as a group, to their intent to offend or their vulnerability to being called rude (I'm not seeing the connection).

Edited July 13, 2017 by CV75

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll give you the same invitation I just gave HJW.

I have a right to respond to a comment directed at me.

From what I've seen, you are the only one on this thread employing semantics like Bobbieaware referred to.  First you stated the discussion wasn't about gay marriage, but was about homosexuality. Then, you post that it's not about homosexuality, but it's about gay marriage.

You keep changing the discussion.  So, is it now about both and if not, which one?

Edited July 13, 2017 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'll give you the same invitation I just gave HJW.

Geesh! Got some thin skin there, Scott!

Quote

Scott Lloyd:

I reject your accusation. This is a good-faith discussion.

If you regard it as mere "game-playing," I invite you to withdraw now.

I reject your invitation to withdraw from this conversation.  

I will leave the conversation when I decide, not because you rudely ask me to leave. Channeling your inner Julianne?

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since the concept of gay marriage did not exist when scriptures were written, there will not be any instance of scripture addressing it. What is under discussion here is use of the word in scripture in association with homosexuality, not homosexual marriage as such.

That being the case, can you tell us what 'ebah does mean?

Edited to add:

Never mind. I found this website that addresses the matter.

Try this one, pre-political correctness:  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/352-abomination

Quote

 (to'ebah):Abomination of the highest degree; originally that which offends the religious sense of a people. 

In my own offerings, I limit the usage to compulsory participation in homosexual marriage rites.  I do so in reliance on the Book of Daniel and its echoes in the Greek New Testament.

The Abomination of Desolation, the perversion of the use of G-d's Temple and the rites performed therein, is, in my view, the scriptural usage most applicable to homosexual marriage rites.

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Try this one, pre-political correctness:  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/352-abomination

In my own offerings, I limit the usage to compulsory participation in homosexual marriage rites.  I do so in reliance on the Book of Daniel and its echoes in the Greek New Testament.

The Abomination of Desolation, the perversion of the use of G-d's Temple and the rites performed therein, is, in my view, the scriptural usage most applicable to homosexual marriage rites.

Not entirely sure how that helps the argument in favor of the use of the term in this setting.

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have no quarrel with this. But I do with Tacenda's suggestion about her ability to know what's in someone's "heart" and to thus condemn such a person.

Well, I know what they're taught in a round about way in the church and what they read in the Bible, and I've read the words on this board from some LDS members, very few, luckily. 

You're right, I assume too much, but since it is a teaching that gays aren't suppose to marry and act on their homosexuality in the church, I figured LDS would believe what they're taught and that it is it's an abomination.

That's what I mean't by it being in in their hearts. But I don't think they would ever tell a gay person that, because I believe the LDS I know, would never want to hurt someone like that. That was my meaning.

 And I was saying since someone is anonymous they can say it out loud on the board, and IMO that's just as rude to those on the board that are gay.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Tacenda

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not entirely sure how that helps the argument in favor of the use of the term in this setting.

Did you read the link in Scott's OP?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The Bible's condemnation of fornication between men and women is not the same thing as a condemnation of men and women getting married, right?

I'm surprised as I find the above weak line of argumentation to be below your usual standard. Your comment is perfect example of the kind of silly wordplay to which I was referring. 

The fact is that the scriptures teach us men and women are commanded of God to marry and then to bring forth children within the marriage covenant. The reason why fornication is considered sinful is because the Lord specifically COMMANDS his sons and daughters to have male-female sexual relations but only within the hallowed bounds of the covenant of marriage that he ordained even before the fall. Meanwhile, men and men and women and women are nowhere commanded to have sexual relations and to bring forth children within a sacred marriage covenant.

In order for your argument to make logical sense, homosexual marriage would have to have been specifically commanded of God. It's the very holiness and sanctity of divinely commanded male-female marriage that makes heterosexual fornication a sin. But since there is no commandment for men to marry men and women to marry women, homosexual sexual relations are sinful either within a so-called marriage or without one.

Some on this board have argued that because the scriptures don't specifically mention or condem gay marriage that we cannot presume such marriages are counter to God's will. But ironically, it's the very fact that homosexual marriage isn't specifically commanded that we can know it's wrong. If homosexual marriage was God's will, he would have specifically commanded it. In fact, the very first commandment God gave to his children is for a man to leave his FATHER and MOTHER and, as a male. to be eternally bonded to his female wife as the means of bringing children into the world. There is no such commandment for men to marry men and women to marry women in barren unions.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Did you read the link in Scott's OP?

Yes. And?

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I'm surprised as I find the above weak line of argumentation to be below your usual standard. Your comment is perfect example of the kind of silly wordplay to which I was referring. 

The fact is that the scriptures teach us men and women are commanded of God to marry and then to bring forth children within the marriage covenant. The reason why fornication is considered sinful is because the Lord specifically COMMANDS his sons and daughters to have male-female sexual relations but only within the hallowed bounds of the covenant of marriage that he ordained even before the fall. Meanwhile, men and men and women and women are nowhere commanded to have sexual relations and to bring forth children within a sacred marriage covenant.

In order for your argument to make logical sense, homosexual marriage would have to have been specifically commanded of God. It's the very holiness and sanctity of divinely commanded male-female marriage that makes heterosexual fornication a sin. But since there is no commandment for men to marry men and women to marry women, homosexual sexual relations are sinful either within a so-called marriage or without one.

Some on this board have argued that because the scriptures don't specifically mention or condem gay marriage that we cannot presume such marriages are counter to God's will. But ironically, it's the very fact that homosexual marriage isn't specifically commanded that we can know it's wrong. If homosexual marriage was God's will, he would have specifically commanded it. In fact, the very first commandment God gave to his children is for a man to leave his FATHER and MOTHER and, as a male. to be eternally bonded to his female wife as the means of bringing children into the world. There is no such commandment for men to marry men and women to marry women in barren unions.

I think in order for this argument to have any weight, you'd have to agree that anything not specifically commanded in scriptures must be forbidden. That would be quite a long list, including getting vaccinated, going to college, adopting rescue dogs, and all kinds of other modern things that ancient Biblical writers never would have conceived of.

But if the scriptures teach broadly applicable principles that we can use to help guide our lives in any situation, then I must conclude that marriage for gay couples is indeed godly and right.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Try this one, pre-political correctness:  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/352-abomination

In my own offerings, I limit the usage to compulsory participation in homosexual marriage rites.  I do so in reliance on the Book of Daniel and its echoes in the Greek New Testament.

The Abomination of Desolation, the perversion of the use of G-d's Temple and the rites performed therein, is, in my view, the scriptural usage most applicable to homosexual marriage rites.

Right up there with this abomination:

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not entirely sure how that helps the argument in favor of the use of the term in this setting.

I think it's a perfectly good term to use in a religious context, with a perfectly sound history of usage. But if people find the need to explain themselves for using it or not liking it, a message board offers the perfect opportunity to be heard as well as to re-read and analyze what ideas are actually being shared.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yes. And?

Its discussion of to'ebah is, in my view, an anti-Christian polemic specifically because the term as applied by Jews and Christians to homosexual relations is expressly included in Leviticus and elsewhere, including the Greek New Testament, yet is not so applied by the smaller liberal Christian and Jewish minorities.  From this, the author(s) conclude that only those whom the author(s) can call names accept the plain language of Leviticus and the Greek New Testament, and those who don't accept that plain language don't get called those names.

That's what's different.  In the pre-PC days when my link was created.

That's all.

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Right up there with this abomination:

If Red Lobster's an abomination, I don't want to be "un-abominable"!