Gay Man Pleasantly Surprised Over Acceptance in Provo and Ward

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I couldn't care less who accepts me or who doesn't.  What I don't accept is erroneous assumptions made by someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

Sonny, you know anything about me except what I've revealed to you here...

[LittleNipper]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Equality under the law and the ability to get married is just as important to straight couples as it is gay couples. Answer the CFR's and then we will believe you.  Otherwise you are making assumptions that have no basis in actual facts.

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about.

Everyone wants to be accepted but not everyone's behavior is acceptable. And frankly, if you live to be 80 or 90 or 100, if the most important thing to you is your homosexualiy, you will be a pretty sour old dud. PS> I don't consider propaganda the truth.

[Marginal Gains]

On 09/09/2017 at 2:58 AM, LittleNipper said:

I do not consider one's sexual appetite as defining the person. Homosexuality is a habitual choice. Yes, it maybe a nagging feeling ; however, I feel strongly that ONE's CHARACTER is a more important value. I would not wish to be defined by my sexuality nor would I wish it to be the end all focus of my life.  Friendship is to be desired by far above sex; unfortunately, to a growing number of blinded people one's sexuality is the defining  pinnacle of one's existence. 

You do not know what you are talking about. Your opinion seems solely based on your own phobias and nothing to do with how same sex attraction occurs.

”a habitual choice” and “a nagging feeling” are opinions that belong back in the 1950’s. I’d love to know on what rational basis you’ve concluded those two things?

Edited September 10, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I do not necessarily want to jump into this dialogue melee between you and California boy but I would ask you if you are thinking of gay activists as opposed to gays? As a citizen and as a member of the LDS Church, I worry about gay activists but really not about there being gay people in society. I think Ben in my blog link above and California boy are speaking as gay men, not really as activists. That may or may not help your exchange.

Satan looks for our vulnerability. And honestly, I cannot see how society benefits by the encouragement of strange behavior of any sort. What I believe people should do individually is try to help those with problems and not change definitions to accommodate . 

[LittleNipper]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You do not know what you are talking about. Your opinion seems solely based on your own phobias and nothing to do with how same sex attraction occurs.

”a habitual choice” and “a nagging feeling” are opinions that belong back in the 1950’s. I’d love to know on what rational basis you’ve concluded those two things?

Can you deny that non-homosexuals have found themselves dragged into court simply because they didn't wish to be a participant in the "gay" charide? !950's! Try 1940's, 1930's, 1920's, the teens, 1900. Let's hark back to even ancient Rome and Greece. Even the most pagan of society (INCLUDING SODOM) while engaging in all sort of debauchery firmly held marriage to be for the sole purpose of raising children and passing along the family  inheritance to the first male heir.

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Can you deny that non-homosexuals have found themselves dragged into court simply because they didn't wish to be a participant in the "gay" charide? !950's! Try 1940's, 1930's, 1920's, the teens, 1900. Let's hark back to even ancient Rome and Greece. Even the most pagan of society (INCLUDING SODOM) while engaging in all sort of debauchery firmly held marriage to be for the sole purpose of raising children and passing along the family  inheritance to the first male heir.

No, I don’t agree.

People have been dragged into court simply because they chose to disobey the law.

Since when has a condition of marriage been that it is to be solely used for raising children?

Should people who cannot have children therefore be barred from getting married?

Edited September 10, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Everyone wants to be accepted but not everyone's behavior is acceptable. And frankly, if you live to be 80 or 90 or 100, if the most important thing to you is your homosexualiy, you will be a pretty sour old dud. PS> I don't consider propaganda the truth.

Sorry, you are not going to get away with your nonsense. I have formally issued you.  4 CFR's. According to the rules of this board, you must back up your statements with credible proof or withdraw your assertions. Consider this your second notification 

 

 

17 at 3:58 AM,  LittleNipper said: 

I do not consider one's sexual appetite as defining the person.

CFR that a gay person's sexual appetite defines them any more than a straight person

Homosexuality is a habitual choice.

CFR that homosexuality is a habitual choice

Yes, it maybe a nagging feeling ; however, I feel strongly that ONE's CHARACTER is a more important value. I would not wish to be defined by my sexuality nor would I wish it to be the end all focus of my life.  Friendship is to be desired by far above sex; unfortunately, to a growing number of blinded people one's sexuality is the defining  pinnacle of one's existence. 

CFR that gays don't put the same importance on friendship as someone who is straight.

CFR that a gay person's orientation is the defining pinnacle of one's existence.

Equality under the law and the ability to get married is just as important to straight couples as it is gay couples. Answer the CFR's and then we will believe you.  Otherwise you are making assumptions that have no basis in actual facts.

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Sonny, you know anything about me except what I've revealed to you here...

It is YOU THAT MADE ASSUMPTIONS about me.  Like I said:

   8 hours ago,  california boy said: 

I couldn't care less who accepts me or who doesn't.  What I don't accept is erroneous assumptions made by someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

[Darren10]

57 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, I don’t agree.

People have been dragged into court simply because they chose to disobey the law.

Since when has a condition of marriage been that it is to be solely used for raising children?

Should people who cannot have children therefore be barred from getting married?

Some *have* been dragged into court simpky fir excercising their freedom of religion which conflicted with state laws and now the US Supreme Court. 

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, I don’t agree.

People have been dragged into court simply because they chose to disobey the law.

Since when has a condition of marriage been that it is to be solely used for raising children?

Should people who cannot have children therefore be barred from getting married?

 

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Some *have* been dragged into court simpky fir excercising their freedom of religion which conflicted with state laws and now the US Supreme Court. 

We agree, they were dragged into court for disobeying the law, regardless of the banner they sought to justify it under.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

We agree, they were dragged into court for disobeying the law, regardless of the banner they sought to justify it under.

Then to be clear, "being dragged into court" is not necessarily "bad". Nor is it because one is immoral or a socially malevolent. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Then to be clear, "being dragged into court" is not necessarily "bad". Nor is it because one is immoral or a socially malevolent. 

Many believe it is immoral to discriminate against someone just because they are a gay person who is entering a SSM.  

[JulieM]

On September 8, 2017 at 6:58 PM, LittleNipper said:

Homosexuality is a habitual choice. 

Church leaders do not teach that.  

Do you believe a person chooses to be gay?

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, I don’t agree.

People have been dragged into court simply because they chose to disobey the law.

Since when has a condition of marriage been that it is to be solely used for raising children?

Should people who cannot have children therefore be barred from getting married?

Are you saying that a gay couple can biologically produce children applying only homosexual behavior? I believe that only couples designed by GOD to copulate in a biological way to produce children should be allowed to use the godly term "marriage." If a couple of guys or women wish to share a life, they certainly can have a legal agreement drawn up by a lawyer. It is funny, but in Nazi Germany a person could be legally shot because he harbored Jews. The laws were all authorized and on the books ----------------------- it didn't make it moral. 

I feel that morality overrides governmental bureaucratic hypocrisy. This is still considered "One Nation Under GOD." That clearly means that even our government "once" understood that it answered to a Higher Authority.

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Church leaders do not teach that.  

Do you believe a person chooses to be gay?

What/whose "church leaders" are you referring? 

Let me ask you a question? Do you believe a person chooses to sin? Is it OK to lie, cheat, steal, molest, get drunk, have an affair, murder, be a cannibal?  What if you firmly believe you were born that way? Does that make it right? The Bible says, "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD!" Does this excuse our behavior or does it simply hold up a mirror. Forgiveness comes from GOD when we say we are sorry and repent acknowledging  our sin. What forgiveness exists for the individual who believes that he is entitled to openly sin and expect social support... 

I feel it takes far greater character and heroic resolve to say, "Enough is enough --- I will not be moved by bureaucratic threats." Religion should never take a backseat to sexual agendas.

Edited September 10, 2017 by LittleNipper

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Let me ask you a question? Do you believe a person chooses to sin? 

Yes, but being gay is not a sin.

[Kenngo1969]

Bear in mind, JulieM, the Li'l Nipster is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  (Or am I wrong about that, Nipster? )

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Many believe it is immoral to discriminate against someone just because they are a gay person who is entering a SSM.  

Yup. How do you violate a constitutional right explicitly written into the Constitution for another which is there simply because the Supreme Court said it's there?

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Then to be clear, "being dragged into court" is not necessarily "bad". Nor is it because one is immoral or a socially malevolent. 

Of course being dragged into court for breaking the law is “bad”. Morality or social malevolence is irrelevant when someone breaks the law.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

What/whose "church leaders" are you referring? 

Let me ask you a question? Do you believe a person chooses to sin? Is it OK to lie, cheat, steal, molest, get drunk, have an affair, murder, be a cannibal?  What if you firmly believe you were born that way? Does that make it right? The Bible says, "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD!" Does this excuse our behavior or does it simply hold up a mirror. Forgiveness comes from GOD when we say we are sorry and repent acknowledging  our sin. What forgiveness exists for the individual who believes that he is entitled to openly sin and expect social support... 

I feel it takes far greater character and heroic resolve to say, "Enough is enough --- I will not be moved by bureaucratic threats." Religion should never take a backseat to sexual agendas.

"Is it OK to lie, cheat, steal, molest, get drunk, have an affair, murder, be a cannibal?"

Quote

             Best Answer:  Here's several for you. Figured I'd add them all, just in case. The last one if one of my favorites (quoted from the movie "Hitch").

Here's to cheating, stealing, fighting, and drinking.
If you cheat, may you cheat death,
If you steal, may you steal a woman's heart,
If you fight, may you fight for a brother,
And if you drink, may you drink with me.

May you never lie, steal, cheat or drink,
But if you must lie, lie in each other's arms,
If you must steal, steal kisses,
If you must cheat, cheat death,
And if you must drink, drink with us, your friends.

Never lie, steal, cheat, or drink. But if you must lie, lie in the arms of the one you love. If you must steal, steal away from bad company. If you must cheat, cheat death. And if you must drink, drink in the moments that take your breath away.         

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071111214335AAWJuFu

"Religion should never take a backseat to sexual agendas." - AMEN!!!!

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Are you saying that a gay couple can biologically produce children applying only homosexual behavior? I believe that only couples designed by GOD to copulate in a biological way to produce children should be allowed to use the godly term "marriage." If a couple of guys or women wish to share a life, they certainly can have a legal agreement drawn up by a lawyer. It is funny, but in Nazi Germany a person could be legally shot because he harbored Jews. The laws were all authorized and on the books ----------------------- it didn't make it moral. 

I feel that morality overrides governmental bureaucratic hypocrisy. This is still considered "One Nation Under GOD." That clearly means that even our government "once" understood that it answered to a Higher Authority.

A gay couple can have children in exactly the same way as an impotent heterosexual couple can have children.

You are now moving the goal posts you set - marriage is solely for couples who can produce children, you said. And now you’re saying, well, not that.

[Darren10]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Of course being dragged into court for breaking the law is “bad”. Morality or social malevolence is irrelevant when someone breaks the law.

"Bad" in the sense that it's inconvenient, highly so in many cases, but I don't think that was the "bad" we were referring to. Was Joseph Smith was "bad" for "being dragged out to court"?

Edited September 10, 2017 by Darren10

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, Darren10 said:

"Bad" in the sense that it's inconvenient, highly so in many cases but I don't think that was the "bad" we were referring to. Was Joseph Smith was "bad" for "being dragged out to court"?

“Bad” in the sense that breaking the law is not only bad, it’s a breach of Church doctrine. See the articles of faith.

And yes, breaking the law for illegally and fraudulently pretending to be able to find buried treasure using a seer stone is bad. As is breaking the law for illegally ordering the destruction of a printing press because it was going to publish the details of your numerous wives that you had already, under oath, denied having.

[Darren10]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

“Bad” in the sense that breaking the law is not only bad, it’s a breach of Church doctrine. See the articles of faith.

And yes, breaking the law for illegally and fraudulently pretending to be able to find buried treasure using a seer stone is bad. As is breaking the law for illegally ordering the destruction of a printing press because it was going to publish the details of your numerous wives that you had already, under oath, denied having.

Joseph Smith was acquitted over the charges of seeking treasure. Just because he was "dragged into court" did not make him "bad". The printing press was "bad" in the sense that it was a "bad" decision, not illegal. Ddi Joseph Smith "lie under oath" regarding his wives?

"it’s a breach of Church doctrine" - Except when the Church does it I guess. Though, granted the church sets a very high standard in this regard and does a remarkable job setting an example.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Darren10

[LittleNipper]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

A gay couple can have children in exactly the same way as an impotent heterosexual couple can have children.

You are now moving the goal posts you set - marriage is solely for couples who can produce children, you said. And now you’re saying, well, not that.

 

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

"Bad" in the sense that it's inconvenient, highly so in many cases but I don't think that was the "bad" we were referring to. Was Joseph Smith was "bad" for "being dragged out to court"?

However, a gay couple cannot perform sex with a same sex partner in the same way as heterosexuals should.  Ideally, children should have both a Father and Mother figure. Only the events in a sinful world produce other possibilities. However, when the government sanctions such anomalies, it's undermining the family ideal as policy.