Pope Endorses Homosexual Behavior?

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well that’s a comprehensive rebuttal.

It wasn't a rebuttal. It was an assertion. Just like your assertion, with no reasoning behind it and just as comprehensive.

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Orwell. Fantastic rebuttal.

Again, it wasn't a rebuttal, it was an assertion.  You asserted that homosexuality was equivalent to heterosexuality.  I asserted that they weren't equivalent.  You gave no backing facts, and neither did I.

I brought up Orwell because the equivalence of homosexuality to heterosexuality (opposites) reminded me of the Orwellian equivalences that I mentioned, e.g. "freedom is slavery".

Why can't you recognize a bare unsupported assertion when you make one, but can recognize it when I do?  Good for the goose, but not the gander?

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Homosexuality is permitted, by law.

I never denied that homosexuality was permitted by law. In fact I recognized that it was, and indicated that I thought that's the way it should remain.  Can't recognize agreement when you see it?  

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

It’s also permitted by God’s law, just not by your version of God.

Finally something arguable!  I was beginning to think you couldn't do it.  

And now we're getting somewhere!  My version of God, and I was very careful to specify my version, which, if you remember, was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Which is your version of God?  One you've made up for yourself, or an existing model, such as Zeus, Ahura Mazda, or Loki?

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Same sex attraction is not the equivalent of a kleptomaniacs involuntary desire to steal. That you drew such an analogy is laughable. 

Again, you are running off on a straw man.  I didn't say that they were equivalent, I said that they were impulses that some people are subject to.  Are you going to deny that they are not impulses that some people are subject to?

And I said that according to the law of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, people subject to both impulses would be expected to resist them, in obedience to that God's commandments.

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, you didn’t say a thing about the desire to be in a loving relationship. Which kind of makes my point about your argument.

You're ridiculous.  I did say that most people have the desire to be in a loving relationship.  You must have missed it, as you appear to have missed pretty much everything I've written, since practically every response you've given is to make up a straw man response to what I've written, and then dramatically push it over.  

[Stargazer]

48 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Sneering condescension, amiright?

No, it's not.  I've been noticing that you refuse to address the arguments that are presented, preferring to address other arguments that you put in their places.

[Marginal Gains]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It wasn't a rebuttal. It was an assertion. Just like your assertion, with no reasoning behind it and just as comprehensive.

Again, it wasn't a rebuttal, it was an assertion.  You asserted that homosexuality was equivalent to heterosexuality.  I asserted that they weren't equivalent.  You gave no backing facts, and neither did I.

I brought up Orwell because the equivalence of homosexuality to heterosexuality (opposites) reminded me of the Orwellian equivalences that I mentioned, e.g. "freedom is slavery".

Why can't you recognize a bare unsupported assertion when you make one, but can recognize it when I do?  Good for the goose, but not the gander?

I never denied that homosexuality was permitted by law. In fact I recognized that it was, and indicated that I thought that's the way it should remain.  Can't recognize agreement when you see it?  

Finally something arguable!  I was beginning to think you couldn't do it.  

And now we're getting somewhere!  My version of God, and I was very careful to specify my version, which, if you remember, was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Which is your version of God?  One you've made up for yourself, or an existing model, such as Zeus, Ahura Mazda, or Loki?

Again, you are running off on a straw man.  I didn't say that they were equivalent, I said that they were impulses that some people are subject to.  Are you going to deny that they are not impulses that some people are subject to?

And I said that according to the law of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, people subject to both impulses would be expected to resist them, in obedience to that God's commandments.

You're ridiculous.  I did say that most people have the desire to be in a loving relationship.  You must have missed it, as you appear to have missed pretty much everything I've written, since practically every response you've given is to make up a straw man response to what I've written, and then dramatically push it over.  

Let’s try and get to the foundation of all this. Can we agree that heterosexual attraction is the same as homosexual attraction, with the exception that you believe your version of God disapproves of people acting on the latter?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Sneering condescension, amiright?

Sneering condescension gets a bad rap. Despite that sometimes it is the appropriate response.

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Second, it helps to read the context, which as to do with the causal relationships leading to homosexual behavior -- often beginning with homosexual rape, followed by long habituation to homosexual molestation.

If you are claiming that the man in the OP was not born gay and became gay because he was molested, what source do you have supporting your claim?  He has indicated (from what I've read) that he was born gay and the Pope's words to him support this belief as well.  I'm not sure why you had to bring prison rape into this discussion.

I applaud the Pope if he indeed told this man what he is relating.   I believe it's exactly how Christ would treat him.

Also Smith, your statement that being born gay is possibly a birth defect is over the top offensive and insulting to most who are gay.  

Edited May 22, 2018 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

On 5/21/2018 at 7:50 AM, 2PairsofCletes said:

Where do you get the idea that he has endorsed homosexual behavior?

Please don't tell me it's because he told a man, who happens to be a homosexual, that God loves him???????

Besides the fact that it is all hearsay, and no witnesses(?)

The pope told a gay man that the pope loves him, as is his responsibility, as Christs representative.

The prophet would have told him the same thing.

Total yawner. 

We are all to love everyone

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

47 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Let’s try and get to the foundation of all this. Can we agree that heterosexual attraction is the same as homosexual attraction, with the exception that you believe your version of God disapproves of people acting on the latter?

Perhaps this is the problem.  I do not agree that heterosexual attraction is the same as homosexual attraction.  They may be generated in the same part of the brain, but their objects are different.  

And just who is your god, anyway?

[Stargazer]

I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation.  The board software keeps giving me 403 Forbidden, and I can only post once in awhile.  

[Marginal Gains]

50 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Let’s try and get to the foundation of all this. Can we agree that heterosexual attraction is the same as homosexual attraction, with the exception that you believe your version of God disapproves of people acting on the latter?

 

Just now, Stargazer said:

Perhaps this is the problem.  I do not agree that heterosexual attraction is the same as homosexual attraction.  They may be generated in the same part of the brain, but their objects are different.  

And just who is your god, anyway?

That you don’t accept sexual attractions are equal is indeed the problem. How are you differentiating between “their objects”?

[Storm Rider]

I love when threads devolve into this tired argument that we do ad nauseum.  No, there is very little middle ground in the argument over homosexuality and the two sides will not agree.  Yes, they should agree to disagree and move on.  I know, because many of us have said so on multiple occasions that this topic bores the peewaden out of many of us.  How about we actually return to the thread? 

If you feel the need to discuss this topic further start your own thread and then everyone who is not interested will not read it.  

Returning to the thread - Pope Francis has made it repeatedly clear that he will talk off the cuff almost as much as President Trump does. His declarations off the cuff cause a high degree of comfort for traditional Catholics and opportunities to rejoice for liberal Catholics.  

It will be interesting what happens with the next pope and if he will continue on this path or if a more traditional pontiff will reign in some of his more extreme statements.

Lastly, I do think it is interesting (in a positive way) that we LDS are open to listening to the comments of other spiritual leaders.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Let’s try and get to the foundation of all this. Can we agree that heterosexual attraction is the same as homosexual attraction, with the exception that you believe your version of God disapproves of people acting on the latter?

What do you mean "the same as?"

Homosexual behavior is, as a matter of biology, not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  Heterosexual behavior comports with differences in human physiology between males and females.

Homosexual behavior, as a matter of propagating the species through reproduction, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  The latter has the capacity to achieve that objective, the former does not.

Homosexual behavior, as a matter of sexually-transmitted diseases, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  For example, "men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk [for contracting STDs]."  And here: "Several studies have documented elevated rates of both sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and STI risk behaviors and among MSM/MSMW (men who have sex with men/men who have sex with men and women) and WSW/WSMW (women who have sex with women/women who have sex with men and women) populations compared to men and women who engage exclusively in opposite-sex sexual relationships."

Homosexual behavior, as a matter of sexual promiscuity, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  See here:

Quote

Allen E. Bergin pointed out, long before the HIV/AIDS crisis began, 50% of white male homosexuals in San Francisco had each had at least 500 sexual partners, 28% had had 1,000 partners, and fully 25% of the adult homosexual males of San Francisco had actually had sex with minors under the age of 164 – while many more retained that as an objective and used a variety of means to obtain access to young boys, e.g., via adult leadership and participation in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), or the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA),5 and the like, or simply cruising in search of young male prostitutes – or now by “cruising” gay chat rooms on the internet in search of “quick turnaround sex” (current statistics are astonishing, and gay & bisexual males “are two to three times as likely as heterosexual men to seek sexual partners online”).6

---

4   Bergin, “Bringing the Restoration to the Academic World: Clinical Psychology as a Test Case,” BYU Studies, 19/4 (1979), 449-473 (esp. 467, citing Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg [1978]).  Cf. Eli Schuster, “Study Shows Link Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia,” The Interim, Sept 2002 (http://www.lifesite.net/interim ), citing Timothy J. Dailey, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse (2002).

 

5   John D. Gustav-Wrathall, Take the Young Stranger by the Hand: Same-Sex Relations and the YMCA (1998), his published dissertation (he is gay and a former BYU student of D. Michael Quinn).  Horatio Alger, for example, used both the YMCA and homes for newsboys as his venues for procurement of young boys for sex, after he had to leave his ministry of a Unitarian congregation in Brewster, Massachusetts, for molesting two young boys (“Biographies: The Lives of Horatio Alger, Jr.,” at http://www.lib.rochester.edu/ camelot/cinder/bio.htm ); Gary Scharnhorst and Jack Bales, The Lost Life of Horatio Alger, Jr. (1985) – with the pickup of young boys by affluent young men being a standard plot-line in his famous novels.  

 

6 Charles Ornstein, “Online Access to Risky Sex,” Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2002 (“Column One”), A1,26-27 (quotes from A1 and 26, respectively).  Just one internet site, http://www.gay.com reported 17.7 million chat sessions in April 2002 (A26-27, with statistical chart).

Homosexual behavior, as regarding instances of domestic violence, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

According to the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), there is a higher prevalence of lifetime experiences of IPV [Intimate Partner Violence] among bisexual women than heterosexual women (Walters et al, 2013). Bisexual women are 1.8 times more likely to report ever having experienced IPV than heterosexual women

...

According to the NISVS, bisexual women are 2.6 times more likely to report ever having experienced intimate partner sexual violence compared to heterosexual women.

...

According to the NISVS, bisexual men seem more likely to report ever having experienced IPV than heterosexual men, and gay men seem less likely than heterosexual men to report ever having experienced IPV

One study that used a representative sample estimated that 26.9% of gay men had experienced IPV in their lifetimes and 12.1% had experienced IPV in the past year (Goldberg et al, 2013).

"Table 1" in the previous link shows statistics comparing "lifetime IPV" for heterosexual men and women (28.7% and 32.3%, respectively) versus homosexual men and women (25.2% and 40.4%, respectively) and bisexuals (37.3% and 56.9%, respectively).

Homosexual behavior, as regarding mental and emotional health, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, according to a study in the Netherlands. Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide. (Study of 5,998 Dutch adults. Theo G.M. Sandforte, T. Graaf, R. Bijl, R. Schnabel, P. (2001) Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence,” Archives of General Psychiatry. 58, 10: 85-91.) 

...

A co-twin study found that men with same-sex partners were 6.5 times as likely as their co-twin to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not explained by mental health or substance abuse disorders. (Herrell, R. et al (1999) “A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men” Archives of General Psychiatry. 56, 10: 867 – 874.)

...

A study by Harvard Medical School of 4,159 high school students (grades 9-12) found that “GLB youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors…engage[ing] in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population.” More than 30 health risks and problem behaviors were identified, including an increased use of cocaine and other illegal drugs, use of tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine before age 13, sexual intercourse before age 13, and sexual intercourse with four or more partners. (R. Garofalo et. al., “The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents,” Pediatrics, Vol. 101, No. 5, May 1998: 895-902.) Homosexual or bisexual teenagers are more than three times as likely to attempt suicide as their heterosexual peers. (R. Garofalo, R. C. Wolf, L. S. Wissow, E. R. Woods and E. Goodman. “Sexual Orientation and Risk of Suicide Attempts Among a Representative Sample of Youth.’ Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 153 [1999]: 487-493.)

...

Thirty-two percent of homosexual men and women abuse alcohol, as compared with 7 % (10 % of men and 5 % of women) in the general population. (Fifield, L., Latham, J., Phillips, C. (1977) Alcoholism in the Gay Community: The Price of Alienation, Isolation, and Oppression, A Project of the Gay Community Service Center, Los Angeles, CA)

And so on.

So there is a lot more to differentiate heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior than just religious opprobrium ("that you believe your version of God disapproves of people acting on [homosexual attraction]."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2018 by smac97

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

 

Also Smith, your statement that being born gay is possibly a birth defect is over the top offensive and insulting to those who are gay.  

Ah, gotta love that straightsplaning. Do you also make it a habit to speak for women and racial minorities?

 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Ah, gotta love that straightsplaning. Do you also make it a habit to speak for women and racial minorities?

 

Nope.  I simply have many friends who are gay (and a few family members of mine and of my wife's) and I've heard them express this several times.  I'd wager the majority of those who are gay, do not like hearing that they were born with a "birth defect" because they were born gay.  I know it may not offend you possibly, and I respect that. (I did edit it to say "most".)

I've also heard at least one member here call being gay a malady.  I find that to be offensive and insulting as well, and I'd imagine most gay people would agree.

Edited May 22, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

What about birth anomaly?  If chromosomes or other physical features are altered during gestation from their original form and that is one of the contributors to homosexual attraction/orientation, there needs to be some way to discuss this without going into detail each time, it seems to me.  

Perhaps there is a technical term I am not aware of?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope.  I simply have many friends who are gay (and a few family members of mine and of my wive's) and I've heard them express this several times.  I'd wager the majority of those who are gay, do not like hearing that they were born with a "birth defect" because they were born gay.  I know it may not offend you possibly, and I respect that.

I apologize for singling you out. Others on the thread are probably more guilty. 

Still, I hate how easy it is to close off discussion by declaring a particular viewpoint offensive. To say nothing of "over the top offensive." 

I think it's funny that now it is not politically correct to talk about being born gay. It used to be offensive to say that homosexuality was learned or influenced by the environment. Activists pushed the "born that way" narrative heavily. But now we have to push the cause further back to an essential, immutable, trait that just is, no matter what, and despite what science says. 

Would you call being born deaf a "birth defect?" 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

If you are claiming that the man in the OP was not born gay and became gay because he was molested, what source do you have supporting your claim?  He has indicated (from what I've read) that he was born gay and the Pope's words to him support this belief as well.  I'm not sure why you had to bring prison rape into this discussion.

I applaud the Pope if he indeed told this man what he is relating.   I believe it's exactly how Christ would treat him.

Also Smith, your statement that being born gay is possibly a birth defect is over the top offensive and insulting to most who are gay.  

The conclusion of the best science is that people do not decide to be homosexual, and I described several well-known etiologies (genetic, uterine, and habituation).  Members of the homosexual community have long maintained that they are born that way, and science seems to support that claim.  This means that they are not blameworthy, in the same way that the blind man is not to blame for being born blind (according to Jesus).

Your false description of what I said (blaming it all on molestation) appears to be deliberate, Larson.  A little sincerity is always a good idea.  Moreover, you do not speak for the homosexual community.  Practice some restraint, and limit your comments to the facts -- always helpful to civil discussion.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Sneering condescension, amiright?

When you plainly misstate what I have said, that indicates either ignorance or lack of sincerity.  You cannot make marginal gains in either case.  This appears to be a zero sum game to you.

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When you plainly misstate what I have said, that indicates either ignorance or lack of sincerity.  You cannot make marginal gains in either case.  This appears to be a zero sum game to you.

Best comment of the thread!

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

What do you mean "the same as?"

Homosexual behavior is, as a matter of biology, not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  Heterosexual behavior comports with differences in human physiology between males and females.

Homosexual behavior, as a matter of propagating the species through reproduction, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  The latter has the capacity to achieve that objective, the former does not.

Homosexual behavior, as a matter of sexually-transmitted diseases, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  For example, "men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk [for contracting STDs]."  And here: "Several studies have documented elevated rates of both sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and STI risk behaviors and among MSM/MSMW (men who have sex with men/men who have sex with men and women) and WSW/WSMW (women who have sex with women/women who have sex with men and women) populations compared to men and women who engage exclusively in opposite-sex sexual relationships."

Homosexual behavior, as a matter of sexual promiscuity, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  See here:

Homosexual behavior, as regarding instances of domestic violence, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  See, e.g., here:

"Table 1" in the previous link shows statistics comparing "lifetime IPV" for heterosexual men and women (28.7% and 32.3%, respectively) versus homosexual men and women (25.2% and 40.4%, respectively) and bisexuals (37.3% and 56.9%, respectively).

Homosexual behavior, as regarding mental and emotional health, is not "the same as" heterosexual behavior.  See, e.g., here:

And so on.

So there is a lot more to differentiate heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior than just religious opprobrium ("that you believe your version of God disapproves of people acting on [homosexual attraction]."

Thanks,

-Smac

It's always been fairly clear to me that putting crucial  body parts  which include openings and provide a perfect place for bacteria to grow, into areas of anothers body which have disease laden discharges, which we resist touching and are very concerned about cleanliness relating to discharges from those areas, is not a good idea.

But I was raised to wash my hands too.  I mean every restroom has a sign to that effect, right? 

Guess that proves I am old fashioned.  Seems to me that portions of the body are for things going out and not going in, but I guess that's just me.

Regardless of the causes of the behavior, I cannot fathom that this is "healthy" in any way.

Edited May 23, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When you plainly misstate what I have said, that indicates either ignorance or lack of sincerity.  You cannot make marginal gains in either case.  This appears to be a zero sum game to you.

And this is the same conclusion I reached with some certainty last week, involving other marginal games being played. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, it's not.  I've been noticing that you refuse to address the arguments that are presented, preferring to address other arguments that you put in their places.

And there are never any answers to questions, just the good old switcharoo as you suggest

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Returning to the thread - Pope Francis has made it repeatedly clear that he will talk off the cuff almost as much as President Trump does. His declarations off the cuff cause a high degree of comfort for traditional Catholics and opportunities to rejoice for liberal Catholics.  

Not really equivalent. The pope is not generally lying off the cuff.

[california boy]

As I have said often on this board, the Mormon Church is a toxic place for someone who is gay. And a gay member’s best option is to get as far away from it as possible. The church may work great for many straight people. The same can not be said if you are gay.  Leave it, and go out into the world and find a full and rich life filled with joy and love. Find God for yourself and learn the blessings and path He has in store for you. The Mormon Church is not the path.  If a young gay man has any doubts, I would have them read any of the countless threads where straight Mormons give their understanding of what it is to be gay.  I see little of Christ in this thread except the words of the Pope and a few that think outside the Mormon belief system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

As I have said often on this board, the Mormon Church is a toxic place for someone who is gay. And a gay member’s best option is to get as far away from it as possible. The church may work great for many straight people. The same can not be said if you are gay.  Leave it, and go out into the world and find a full and rich life filled with joy and love. Find God for yourself and learn the blessings and path He has in store for you. The Mormon Church is not the path.  If a young gay man has any doubts, I would have them read any of the countless threads where straight Mormons give their understanding of what it is to be gay.  I see little of Christ in this thread except the words of the Pope and a few that think outside the Mormon belief system.

The Mormon Church is a toxic place for someone who is gay, someone who has gay relatives, parents with gay children, people with friends who are gay etc. You only have to peruse this thread to see the kind of abhorrent thinking the Mormon environment propogates.

If message boards were a thing back in the early 1970’s, we’d be witnessing a thread with these same people espousing that God doesn’t want whites to marry blacks. I’m glad society is leaving Mormonism behind, it belongs in the past.

 

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

That you don’t accept sexual attractions are equal is indeed the problem. How are you differentiating between “their objects”?

Well, imagine that, you can't even figure that out for yourself.  "Their objects", dear Marginal, are opposite versus same sex.  

How's it going, the search for something else to set up as a straw man?

The problem is indeed that you believe that gay vs straight sexual attractions are equal.

I'm done with this pointless exchange.  Have a nice day.